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

[dapaterson]

Can we put that on our Christmas list?  ;D

In traditional Canadian fashion, certainly.  And you'll get 120mm ammo.

No mortars to fire it with, but ammo just the same.

 

[Ralph]

120mm GPS Shell Finally Arrives
  Article Link

It turned out that the new shell performed better than its specifications (the shell falls within a 10 meter/31 foot radius at least half the time.) That was good news, because Afghanistan is a place where 120mm mortars are very useful, and a GPS guided 120mm mortar shell was seen as very helpful for avoiding civilian casualties and reducing the amount of ammo you have to truck in.
end

Isn't that a quote from Anchorman? Where does it land the other half of the time?

 

[PuckChaser]

Isn't that a quote from Anchorman? Where does it land the other half of the time?

To the internet!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjvQFtlNQ-M

 

[MedCorps]

Can we put that on our Christmas list?  ;D

It might already be.

Two things I have noted lately. 

1) I was at a day of meetings where the "Army of Tomorrow" was being discussed as a planning concept. It was pretty interesting stuff and I was pleased and surprised to see that the Army is taking this topic quite seriously, placing real resources behind working on it.  While I was there I was given a copy of a publication called "Designing Canada's Army of Tomorrow".  It was written last year by DLCD in Kingston.  A good read if you can find a copy. Might be on the DWAN somewhere.

One of the points that was discussed (to my pleasure) and then reinforced in the publication (p. 76) was the re-integration of pioneers and mortars back into the infantry battle group due to the fact that it is a more viable force generation structure than one with engineers and artillery permentaly grouped with it. It was good to see that this thinking is not dead and maybe, I would go so far to say, a strong possibility for the Army of Tomorrow.

2) I spoke to someone in Kingston a few weeks ago after that meeting (I cannot remember which shop he was with, maybe from the DLCD shop, or one of the other non-DAD, non-DAT, shops in Kingston) and they were conducting some future concept war-gaming. I mentioned the concept of the mortar platoon and pioneer platoon coming full circle as a concept.  He noted that many of the structures they were using as part of the war-games contained 120mm mortars as part of the infantry battle group structure. I do not think that the results of the war-games are publicly quotable but I will say that the 120mm offer the infantry battle group a notable capability and added combat power. The officers who do these sort of war-gaming for the future were suitably impressed.  This weapon system (120mm mortar) is in line with the Future Indirect Fire Capability (FIFC) as part of the Family of Land Combat Systems (FLCS) in the Army of Tomorrow.

Food for thought.

MC

 

[GnyHwy]

Isn't that a quote from Anchorman? Where does it land the other half of the time?

Since the target coords will likely be off, hopefully on the target, or at least the 25% that are erring toward the target. ;D

It might already be.

Two things I have noted lately. 

1) I was at a day of meetings where the "Army of Tomorrow" was being discussed as a planning concept. It was pretty interesting stuff and I was pleased and surprised to see that the Army is taking this topic quite seriously, placing real resources behind working on it.  While I was there I was given a copy of a publication called "Designing Canada's Army of Tomorrow".  It was written last year by DLCD in Kingston.  A good read if you can find a copy. Might be on the DWAN somewhere.

One of the points that was discussed (to my pleasure) and then reinforced in the publication (p. 76) was the re-integration of pioneers and mortars back into the infantry battle group due to the fact that it is a more viable force generation structure than one with engineers and artillery permentaly grouped with it. It was good to see that this thinking is not dead and maybe, I would go so far to say, a strong possibility for the Army of Tomorrow.

2) I spoke to someone in Kingston a few weeks ago after that meeting (I cannot remember which shop he was with, maybe from the DLCD shop, or one of the other non-DAD, non-DAT, shops in Kingston) and they were conducting some future concept war-gaming. I mentioned the concept of the mortar platoon and pioneer platoon coming full circle as a concept.  He noted that many of the structures they were using as part of the war-games contained 120mm mortars as part of the infantry battle group structure. I do not think that the results of the war-games are publicly quotable but I will say that the 120mm offer the infantry battle group a notable capability and added combat power. The officers who do these sort of war-gaming for the future were suitably impressed.  This weapon system (120mm mortar) is in line with the Future Indirect Fire Capability (FIFC) as part of the Family of Land Combat Systems (FLCS) in the Army of Tomorrow.

Food for thought.

MC

Sounds like DLCD is writing cheques that DAD, DAT, or any Infantry Btln by themselves will not be able to cash.

Not sure where you got your terminology, but it wouldn't be a battle group (BG) without Arty, Engineers, and/or Armd.  It would just be an Inf Btln with a lot of extra capabilities and very few rifles.  Since it pretty much takes a Bde to generate a BG, I think things are just fine; forget about the optimized BG and have an optimized Bde. 

Although, I can agree and argue for the return of the Pioneers and the 81s to the Btlns.

 

[MedCorps]

Not sure where you got your terminology,

It is the terminology used in the DLCD publication. I think (but do not know) they are suggesting that with pioneer and mortar assets integral to the infantry battalion that the infantry battle group will be mostly self-generating, with only minor secondary augmentation required depending on mission.

MC

 

[Old Sweat]

It is the terminology used in the DLCD publication. I think (but do not know) they are suggesting that with pioneer and mortar assets integral to the infantry battalion that the infantry battle group will be mostly self-generating, with only minor secondary augmentation required depending on mission.

MC

And I suggest that is great if you are talking peacekeeping, but not much else. A small platoon of assault pioneers is not the same as a field squadron with all it brings to the table. In the same way a platoon of 120mm mortars (or even 81s for that matter) is very capable and should be back in the battalion, but in no way can it compare to the artillery in areas such as STA, ASCC and a number of the FSCC functions.

Without knowing the whole picture, I may be talking out of my butt. I will just say that the conclusion is surprising.

 

[Sprinting Thistle]

The intent is for the pioneer capability to return in some form to the Inf Bns; not the actual platoon.  So, one should eventually see a "pioneer-like" capability spread across the Bn in each Rifle Coy.  It will be a secondary role / qualification for individuals.  This will enable each Coy to have its own integral capability rather than competing for centralized resources at the Bn level.  The Infantry Corps is still working on how this will all unfold. 

 

[GnyHwy]

It is the terminology used in the DLCD publication. I think (but do not know) they are suggesting that with pioneer and mortar assets integral to the infantry battalion that the infantry battle group will be mostly self-generating, with only minor secondary augmentation required depending on mission.

MC

Found the pub with a quick DIN search.  I did not read it all yet, but I found the paras that you have mentioned above.

Here is the para you mention, cut and paste from the pub. "For example, an infantry battle group with integrated sub-specialties such as pioneers and mortars is a more viable force generation organization than one with engineers and artillery permanently grouped with it.".  From my view, all this is, is a good argument against the OBG, which I like, but some could read it differently.

Reading it with an Infantry agenda, one could read it as the Inf will have all capabilities, and won’t need anyone else, but in a previous paragraph "Where a sufficient grouping of separate skill sets or functions exists that cannot be pragmatically sustained by close combat and close engagement soldiers or organizations without adversely affecting their ability or capability to remain proficient in their core competencies, a separate corps or branch will be required." This in my mind, will be the reason for not burdening the Inf with extra capabilities and skills.

The intent is for the pioneer capability to return in some form to the Inf Bns; not the actual platoon.  So, one should eventually see a "pioneer-like" capability spread across the Bn in each Rifle Coy.  It will be a secondary role / qualification for individuals.  This will enable each Coy to have its own integral capability rather than competing for centralized resources at the Bn level.  The Infantry Corps is still working on how this will all unfold. 

That makes sense.

I have mentioned many times before in other threads, and this one that I am not against the Inf Btlns getting the 81s back, but I question - Why not have Arty guys do it?  They can be attached/detached across the BG just as easy as if they permanently part of the Btln, and the coordination is alleviated from BG Comd, because he will have Arty Comds to do it for him.  But, if the Inf can handle the 81 and still keep their core competencies, than I could agree with them getting them back.

I would draw the line at the 120s though.  If we ever get them, I would argue strongly that the Arty should get them.

 

[Journeyman]

I have mentioned many times before in other threads, and this one that I am not against the Inf Btlns getting the 81s back, but I question - Why not have Arty guys do it?  They can be attached/detached across the BG just as easy as if they permanently part of the Btln, and the coordination is alleviated from BG Comd, because he will have Arty Comds to do it for him.  But, if the Inf can handle the 81 and still keep their core competencies, than I could agree with them getting them back.

Having indirect fires integral within the Bn (not Btln, by the way ) means we have fire support even when higher decides that the Bn CO's priority is lower than someone else in the Bde.

Sometimes it's best not relying on someone else to be there for you...especially for high-demand resources like Arty and Engineers.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Found the pub with a quick DIN search.  I did not read it all yet, but I found the paras that you have mentioned above.

Here is the para you mention, cut and paste from the pub. "For example, an infantry battle group with integrated sub-specialties such as pioneers and mortars is a more viable force generation organization than one with engineers and artillery permanently grouped with it.".  From my view, all this is, is a good argument against the OBG, which I like, but some could read it differently.

Reading it with an Infantry agenda, one could read it as the Inf will have all capabilities, and won’t need anyone else, but in a previous paragraph "Where a sufficient grouping of separate skill sets or functions exists that cannot be pragmatically sustained by close combat and close engagement soldiers or organizations without adversely affecting their ability or capability to remain proficient in their core competencies, a separate corps or branch will be required." This in my mind, will be the reason for not burdening the Inf with extra capabilities and skills.

That makes sense.

I have mentioned many times before in other threads, and this one that I am not against the Inf Btlns getting the 81s back, but I question - Why not have Arty guys do it?  They can be attached/detached across the BG just as easy as if they permanently part of the Btln, and the coordination is alleviated from BG Comd, because he will have Arty Comds to do it for him.  But, if the Inf can handle the 81 and still keep their core competencies, than I could agree with them getting them back.

I would draw the line at the 120s though.  If we ever get them, I would argue strongly that the Arty should get them.

If you read about the actions of the US 'Darby's Rangers' in WW2, they comment on the excellent support provided by this 120mm MOR Bn, obviously not an 'infantry' resource:

http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/id111.htm

 

[Old Sweat]

If you read about the actions of the US 'Darby's Rangers' in WW2, they comment on the excellent support provided by this 120mm MOR Bn, obviously not an 'infantry' resource:

http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/id111.htm

The mortar was 4.2 in, which is roughly 106mm, and was comparable to the British 4.2 in found in the mortar companies and platoons in the infantry division support battalion and the armoured division independent machine gun company during the Second World War. With the post war elimination of the support battalions, the Vickers MMG went to the infantry battalions and the 4.2in went to the light regiment which was part of the divisional artillery. In Canada in the early 1950s we had a light battery - one of which was airborne -  in each Canadian based field regiment. These were converted to medium batteries circa 1958. In 1964 4 RCHA was converted to a ligth regiment with the 4.2in. while infantry battalions had a four tube platoon of the same weapon. The mortar was phased out circa 1968 when the current 81mm came into service. In short either branch did and could still employ a heavy mortar effectively. On balance I would prefer it to go to the infantry, if for no other reason than to increase the number of indirect fire weapons across the board, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Kirkhill]

Could the infantry afford 10 "Rifle" Pl per Bn?

3 in each of the 3 Rifle Coys with Pnr, 60mm, MG-SF and ALAAWs (Javelin) skills integral
1 at HQ with the Recce Pl with  4-8x 81mm, depending on the available PYs but also fully trained in all the Rifle Coy skills.

Depending on the environment and operations the Bn CO could put 10 Pl of "Beat Cops" with riot sticks and small arms into the field; man a heavy, dug in defensive position for a period of time (obviously fewer PYs equals less ground, less frontage and less time holding); conduct a limited assault (limited by available PYs).

Jus' bein' nosy. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Also possible that a 120mm mortar might be seen as a viable replacement for the Reserves 105mm which are showing their age.

I also think our latest war showed that you never have enough engineer, artillery support for everyone who needs it and generally they all need it at the same time. Reintegrating the pioneers, heavy platoons back into the Infantry, gives the Infantry commander more resources to use for tasks in their area, without having to request support from higher up. It also means that when the poop hits the fan somewhere else that sucks up all of the support, the Infantry unit away from the action is left dangling with no support when the poop suddenly hits that particular fan.

 

[dapaterson]

Also possible that a 120mm mortar might be seen as a viable replacement for the Reserves 105mm which are showing their age.

I also think our latest war showed that you never have enough engineer, artillery support for everyone who needs it and generally they all need it at the same time. Reintegrating the pioneers, heavy platoons back into the Infantry, gives the Infantry commander more resources to use for tasks in their area, without having to request support from higher up. It also means that when the poop hits the fan somewhere else that sucks up all of the support, the Infantry unit away from the action is left dangling with no support when the poop suddenly hits that particular fan.

There are no PYs to reintegrate - when the gunners and sappers were told to take on those roles, there were no PYs attached.

 

[GnyHwy]

Having indirect fires integral within the Bn (not Btln, by the way ) means we have fire support even when higher decides that the Bn CO's priority is lower than someone else in the Bde.

Sometimes it's best not relying on someone else to be there for you...especially for high-demand resources like Arty and Engineers.

I'm tracking what you're saying, but who's to say that the mortars won't be detached to an adjacent high priority BG anyway.  If someone else needs them more, than they should be detached, just the way a rifle Plt, engineer Tp, or Tp of guns may get detached from a BG.  Fires should be massed, and to leave tubes silent when they could be used doesn't make sense in my gunner brain.  This would become even more apparent with 120s that are capable off firing cross boundary with little movement.  They may be situated within their own BG boundary, but their priority may very well be across a boundary.

If you read about the actions of the US 'Darby's Rangers' in WW2, they comment on the excellent support provided by this 120mm MOR Bn, obviously not an 'infantry' resource:

http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/id111.htm

I have no doubt that infantry are capable.  Any soldier is, with the proper training.  The 120mm MOR Bn mentioned above were fulltime mortarman, and mortars were their core competency, essentially a different branch eventhough they were classified as infantry.   

 

[GAP]

Uh....guys...........are these humpable?



I remeber fondly humping tube, or baseplate, or ammo for the sixty......that was enough.....

 

[GnyHwy]

Uh....guys...........are these humpable?



I remember fondly humping tube, or baseplate, or ammo for the sixty......that was enough.....

The 120 no way.  The 81 is doable.  Arty guys are currently doing airmobile and potentially airborne with the 81s.  To hump the 81s with minimal ammo is possible, and is being done.  If you can lift or jump a small vehicle, Gator, or ATV with trailer, then it is even more possible.  For sustained dismounted Ops they would need planned, air mobile ammo dumps that could be done with regular replenishment.

 

[Old Sweat]

On my IG course we had a few days on the "Four-deuce" which was a lot of fun. We all had a turn in a mortar detachment and let me tell you it was about as man portable as the stone blocks used in building the pyramids. There were three major components - barrel, baseplate and bridge. The last one, and I am not sure I have the name right, had a small spade on it and ran from the barrel to the ground. The mortar was fired from a constant elevation of 800 mils with the range being changed by altering the propelling charge by eighths of a charge. For example charge 36 1/8 might give a range of 3460 while 36 1/4 might increase the range by 30 metres. (All made up figures.)

The round weighed about the same as a 105mm projectile. At the sharp end it had a larger bursting effect because it carried more HE than the 105. The mortar was fairly accurate and consistent, but was very heavy for the range achieved. Don't let anybody try to convince you that the experience of humping an 81 or 60 is transferable to a heavy mortar.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I know there was no PY's which was the driving force behind resource shell game. Even someone on the sidelines, it's painfully clear that the current force size can not sustain even a modest deployment without help from the Reserves, much less handle multiple deployment. the Combat arms needs to grow by at least 10% (300-500 people?) which still would not resolve a lot of the problems. Keep the same units but beef them up.

My comment about the mortar platoon was directed at 60 and 81mm, always felt that the 120mm should be a higher level assest and either mounted or towed.