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

[Journeyman]

This doesn't solve the problem that drove the army to task the artillery with mortars. 

This assumes you know the reason for the task transfer. I've never seen a justification.

Many, however, believe that it was merely to keep gunners employed in our recent series of deployments - - M109s aren't going anywhere, but mortars may still be handy. Give mortars to the arty, and they don't get cut as "obsolete"; this keeps the cap-badge around in case the pendulum swings back to large-scale combat ops.

 

[Mortar guy]

I know the reason for the transfer - at least the official reason. The PYs were taken out of the infantry battalions so they could be used to form new Command Support Battalions and flesh out CMTC. How are those Command Support Battalions working out in the Brigades anyway?

MG

Edited for spelling

 

[Gunner]

This assumes you know the reason for the task transfer. I've never seen a justification.

Many, however, believe that it was merely to keep gunners employed in our recent series of deployments - - M109s aren't going anywhere, but mortars may still be handy. Give mortars to the arty, and they don't get cut as "obsolete"; this keeps the cap-badge around in case the pendulum swings back to large-scale combat ops.

Of course the most recent series of deployments to Afghanistan negates your argument that mortars went to the artillery simply so they could deploy. 

 

[Journeyman]

I know the reason for the transfer - at least the official reason. The PYs were taken out of the infantry battalions so they could be used to form new Command Support Battalions and flesh out CMTC. How are those Command Support Battalions working out in the Brigades anyway?

Is that official reason published anywhere?

 

[little jim]

Of course the most recent series of deployments to Afghanistan negates your argument that mortars went to the artillery simply so they could deploy. 

Of course the fact this change was made in the middle of the never-ending Bosnia deployments, where the guns didn't start deploying with LG1s till roto 7 sort of negates yours...how many tours went over without an inf mortar platoon and had instead one from the guns?

I believe it wasn't until almost two months after the Wng O for APOLLO went out that the bulk of the 031's in 3 VP's mortar platoon were replaced by 021s.

If the move was made in anticipation of Afghanistan then someone in the Arty should have spoken up that they knew about 9-11....

 

[3rd Horseman]

Arty was deploying to Bosnia as Inf Coys and as the Mortar Pl as early as 94. So I think the argument is mute.

 

[warrickdll]

It would be surprising to find out that a major consideration wasn't how few deployed tasks were artillery at the time compared to infantry tasks.

Here in the now though - if the deployment allocates one battery - then the 155 covers off a lot more tasks than the 81.

But, given the one battery then, if there was a limited requirement for mortars, would the battery task out 3 tubes? Granted it couldn't be done without some notification. Which also makes me question why one gun crew ends up being one mortar crew? Is the crew of a 155 that small?


As for the infantry regaining the medium mortar role, I would say no. If the problem now is the limited number of available batteries then the artillery should be allocated more personnel to cover the role - not the infantry.

Besides, you join up to be infantry, and although I valued being in mortars; somehow firing an indirect weapon system at an unseen target area a few kilometers away never seemed like an infantry task.

As for the mortar platoon in the hip pocket - it was often disbanded entirely prior to deployment, as were Aslt Pnrs and AAP. It makes much more sense having the artillery use mortars then having them as an ad hoc rifle company.

Probably the greater loss to an infantry battalion, from losing Mortars and Aslt Pnrs (and to some extent AAP), would be the knowledge base of the Advance Qualified NCOs.

 

[vonGarvin]

As for the infantry regaining the medium mortar role, I would say no. If the problem now is the limited number of available batteries then the artillery should be allocated more personnel to cover the role - not the infantry.
Besides, you join up to be infantry, and although I valued being in mortars; somehow firing an indirect weapon system at an unseen target area a few kilometers away never seemed like an infantry task.
As for the mortar platoon in the hip pocket - it was often disbanded entirely prior to deployment, as were Aslt Pnrs and AAP. It makes much more sense having the artillery use mortars then having them as an ad hoc rifle company.
Probably the greater loss to an infantry battalion, from losing Mortars and Aslt Pnrs (and to some extent AAP), would be the knowledge base of the Advance Qualified NCOs.

I disagree with your first point.  The Arty has more to do than just lob shells at the enemy beyond the horizon.  The fact remains that manning and firing the guns is their primary role, but there are more.  As for mortars not being an infantry weapon, check this out:
"mortar, in warfare, term originally applied to certain types of artillery with high trajectories, but later applied to an infantry weapon that consists of a tube supported by a bipod that fires a projectile at a very high trajectory. The mortar is not usually classified as artillery. Unlike standard types of artillery, mortars need no complex recoil equipment and are usually smoothbore and muzzle-loaded. Their weight is light in relation to the weight of shell delivered, but at the expense of range and accuracy. First developed by Sir Frederick Stokes during World War I, the mortar was used by infantry in trench warfare and is standard equipment in modern armies.
This is from http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Mortar+(disambiguation)
Infantry is much more than bayonets and blood.

Anyway, my $0.02

 

[Gunner]

Of course the fact this change was made in the middle of the never-ending Bosnia deployments, where the guns didn't start deploying with LG1s till roto 7 sort of negates yours...how many tours went over without an inf mortar platoon and had instead one from the guns?

I believe it wasn't until almost two months after the Wng O for APOLLO went out that the bulk of the 031's in 3 VP's mortar platoon were replaced by 021s.

If the move was made in anticipation of Afghanistan then someone in the Arty should have spoken up that they knew about 9-11....

Actually the LG1 was deployed to Bosnia as part of Roto 6(+) which increased Canada's commitment to Bosnia based on NATO's Balkans Rationalization. 

The deployment to Op APOLLO and the transfer of the mortar role to the artillery are entirely mutually exclusive. 

 

[Journeyman]

Arty was deploying to Bosnia as Inf Coys

This is completely irrelevant to any discussion of infantry's tactical requirement for integral support weapons, such as mortars.

It does however seem to reinforce the view that the decision to transfer mortars to Arty was based more upon finding some deployable role for them. Re-roling Arty to an infantry role merely demonstrates both the benign nature of the Bosnian theatre by that point, and probably the perceived need to get more gunners, besides FOO/FAC parties, some overseas time.

Arty was deploying to Bosnia as Inf Coys and as the Mortar Pl as early as 94. So I think the argument is mute.

The argument is therefore not moot, although perhaps the contribution to this discussion would have benefitted from "mute."

 

[Gunner]

It does however seem to reinforce the view that the decision to transfer mortars to Arty was based more upon finding some deployable role for them. Re-roling Arty to an infantry role merely demonstrates both the benign nature of the Bosnian theatre by that point, and probably the perceived need to get more gunners, besides FOO/FAC parties, some overseas time.

It was more a reflection of the state of the army and poor force generation practices that trying to find a deployable role for the artillery.  1 RCHA was scheduled to deploy to a "hot" theatre in 1995 on OP HARMONY...hardly a benign theatre at the time.

 

[Journeyman]

1 RCHA was scheduled to deploy to a "hot" theatre in 1995 on OP HARMONY...hardly a benign theatre at the time.

Agreed. 1 RCHA's slice of Op HARMONY was to be a complete Bty, plus the artillery-specific support elements....for artillery tasks. This is not the same as the statement, "Arty was deploying to Bosnia as Inf Coys," which I contend is irrelevant to the stated title/purpose of this thread.

 

[warrickdll]

...
As for mortars not being an infantry weapon, check this out:
...
http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Mortar+(disambiguation)
Infantry is much more than bayonets and blood.
...

True enough - most militaries view the 81mm as an infantry weapon.

But consider:
- FSCC
- Baseplate Survey (Group Recce)
- MFCs
- the continuously increasing range and
- capability of the 81mm round
We're no longer simply lobbing explosives from trenchline to trenchline.

To have the Infantry concentrate on generating battalions of rifle companies and the associated recce, and the Armoured concentrate on generating regiments of tank squadrons and the associated recce, probably allows for the more modular deployment approach while still upholding regimental bonds.

What is the main concern with the Artillery providing mortar units: That the Army won't allocate them the resources to generate them, or that the Artillery can't/won't coordinate/integrate with the Infantry effectively?

However, from what I've read in the Artillery forum here, it is a shame that the Artillery seems to see little prestige in providing mortar support.

And, I am still curious how a 6 gun battery would only be able to crew 6 mortars - does it really only take 3xCpl/Pte to crew a 155mm howitzer?

 

[vonGarvin]

True enough - most militaries view the 81mm as an infantry weapon.
But consider:
- FSCC
- Baseplate Survey (Group Recce)
- MFCs
- the continuously increasing range and
- capability of the 81mm round
We're no longer simply lobbing explosives from trenchline to trenchline.

To have the Infantry concentrate on generating battalions of rifle companies and the associated recce, and the Armoured concentrate on generating regiments of tank squadrons and the associated recce, probably allows for the more modular deployment approach while still upholding regimental bonds.

What is the main concern with the Artillery providing mortar units: That the Army won't allocate them the resources to generate them, or that the Artillery can't/won't coordinate/integrate with the Infantry effectively?

However, from what I've read in the Artillery forum here, it is a shame that the Artillery seems to see little prestige in providing mortar support.

And, I am still curious how a 6 gun battery would only be able to crew 6 mortars - does it really only take 3xCpl/Pte to crew a 155mm howitzer?

With regards to FSCC, that was always a BHQ asset: ALWAYS plugged right into callsign zero.  It did more than process calls for platoon level fires and the like, it more importantly coordinated all fires.  Basically the traffic cop of the battalion.  Is it necessary to have infantry man it?  Of course not.  But given the arty's task to man the TF FSCC's as well as regimental FSCC's, all without increase to PYs, well, the math begins to get blurred.
Baseplate survey: three guys to do that: both group comds and the 2IC.  I say: so what?
MFC/FOO combination was a killer at coy gp/cbt tm level.  One would anchor, the other go fwd with the OC.
The range is actually a good thing (over 5 km now for HE rounds out of the 81), especially given the contemporary operational environment.  Consider ATHENA.  Virtually all of the southwest urban area of Kabul could have been covered from JULIEN by 81's.  Put a group further north, and that whole side of town is covered.  The dutch used them on an op when I was there (June 03), providing continuous illum for their lads.
The current capability of the 81mm round is virtually unchanged since the 80s, but you're right, it's no longer from trenchline to trenchline.  Given the "blind spots" behind mountains, hills, crags and everything else, in some cases a high trajectory shot is much better than a low one.
As for infantry battalions "focussing" on infantry companies, well, that's a misunderstanding of what infantry does.  Not by you or me, but by "them".
I guess the only concern with Arty doing mortar stuff is the worry that the arty would relegate the 81 to the QM, and only reluctantly bring them out when told.  Having a crew man both 81 and 155 is like telling a GPMG gunner to have a rifle as well (FYI: GPMG gunners have pistols for side arms, they don't have rifles).

 

[warrickdll]

...As for infantry battalions "focussing" on infantry companies, well, that's a misunderstanding of what infantry does.  Not by you or me, but by "them". ...

No doubt I am in the minority on this one, as I actually find myself agreeing with "them" - I'm sure it doesn't make me a bad person.

My list of FSCC, MFCs, Grp Recce, etc, was just to emphasize the similarities between a mortar platoon and artillery units (vice most infantry sub-units). I'd also like to point out that I have nothing but good things to say about the 81mm's usefulness, versatility, and portability (all support weapons can be awkward - but the 81mm sure breaks down better than the TOW system).

...I guess the only concern with Arty doing mortar stuff is the worry that the arty would relegate the 81 to the QM, and only reluctantly bring them out when told....

Agreed - however, there are plenty posts about how going from the guns to the mortars is just a simple conversion course for the gunners, so I'm wondering if there is an actual example of an artillery mortar battery not fulfilling the role as the infantry would like them to? Or at least any perceived differences?


And - still, anyone know how each gun crew ends up crewing only one mortar?

 

[rampage800]

Iterator

The current TO&E has actual gun batteries down to 4 guns vice 6. I've been told that was a 2 Horse concoction from when they deployed to Kabul and the army thought it was such a splendid idea that they haven't gone back to 6 guns since. With regards to your question each gun det is 8 guys and then breaks down to 2 mortars with 4 guys each for either a 4 gun bty or an 8 mortar battery.  I think now the troops(what the arty guys call their platoons)work independently so you can kind of plug and play what kind of support the OC's need (ie they can have 2 guns and 4 mortars for an attack) Going back to the gun thing it should be noted that the arty had to give up positions somewhere because they've created larger OP parties (6) and added a third OP party as well, the only thing is the US and Brits have realized that 6 gun bty's are too small and have actually gone to 8 I'm led to believe. The whole idea of the mortars being given to the arty for trade preservation and that people actually believe that though still kills me  :-\

 

[vonGarvin]

No doubt I am in the minority on this one, as I actually find myself agreeing with "them" - I'm sure it doesn't make me a bad person.
My list of FSCC, MFCs, Grp Recce, etc, was just to emphasize the similarities between a mortar platoon and artillery units (vice most infantry sub-units). I'd also like to point out that I have nothing but good things to say about the 81mm's usefulness, versatility, and portability (all support weapons can be awkward - but the 81mm sure breaks down better than the TOW system).
Agreed - however, there are plenty posts about how going from the guns to the mortars is just a simple conversion course for the gunners, so I'm wondering if there is an actual example of an artillery mortar battery not fulfilling the role as the infantry would like them to? Or at least any perceived differences?
And - still, anyone know how each gun crew ends up crewing only one mortar?

Well, for infantry, it has always been perceived as a bunch of dudes with rifles and bayonets.  The majority of infantry killing power comes from the support weapons, from machine guns to mortars to TOW to LAV, etc etc.  Anyway, I digress
NOW I get why you listed the components of the mortar platoon.  It was laid out virtually exactly as an eight tube arty battery, as far as I know.
I know from experience that there have been problems using the 81 as far as gunners has gone.  It's all about procedures on the gun line.  OC Mortars in Khandahar in 02 was an infantry officer, and he actually had to pull out the book to prove to sergeant so-and-so that "THIS" is how you do things in a mortar platoon.  Now, as said, that was just procedures on the line.  There is NO doubt in my military mind that a trained mud gunner could easily convert to 81mm in no time flat, and do that job well.  Its just that mud gunners like hitting shit WAY OUT THERE.  Heck, even at just over 5km with 81 (HE), that's virtually across the road for you gunners
I have no idea how each gun crew ends up with just one mortar.  If vonGarvin were CDS, you gunners wouldn't have to worry about that.  Either the infantry would have the mortars back, or you gunners would be multiplied so that you would man either/or, not both simultaneously, and at the same time, I may add
Now, to add to rampage's thoughts, the mortars went to the arty due to a decision made in the late 90's because of manpower shortages in the infantry.  Don't forget, the infantry went from four companies to three in 97 or 98.  That's over a hundred dudes per battalion.  Since then, with mortars and pioneers gone, thats another 80 or so.  Then there's TOW platoon, which isn't "gone", but "shuffled".

 

[Journeyman]

And, I am still curious how a 6 gun battery would only be able to crew 6 mortars - does it really only take 3xCpl/Pte to crew a 155mm howitzer?

For starters, it requires four artillery troops for a three infantryman mortar crew
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/1585/post-337454.html#msg337454

 

[warrickdll]

Thanks Journeyman. Unfortunately I've run smack into my lack of knowledge on how a howitzer is crewed.


This post http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32965/post-247747/topicseen.html#msg247747 leads to a USMC link with 9 or 10 as an M777 crew. While this one http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38996/post-326799/topicseen.html#msg326799 states a crew of 7.

I'm picturing a lot of people standing around a mortar with bore brushes.

Edited for spelling, links, etc...

 

[Gunner]

Agreed. 1 RCHA's slice of Op HARMONY was to be a complete Bty, plus the artillery-specific support elements....for artillery tasks. This is not the same as the statement, "Arty was deploying to Bosnia as Inf Coys," which I contend is irrelevant to the stated title/purpose of this thread.

More than a complete battery, 1 RCHA reroled completely to infantry and was the lead Regiment for the battle group.  If I recall correctly it was only augmented by a company from 3 PPCLI in addition to the normal recce and engineer assets.  There were no "gun batteries" to be deployed.