Thinking about the Infantry Attack

[SeanNewman]

As I wrote in Post #1 on this topic, you are not talking to someone who hates the mortar.  I have long been a huge fan of it and what it can bring to the table.

However, when I hear people saying that the CASW is worthless and "Long Live the 60", I think it's ludicrous.

As for rounds on target being its "only advantage"...giving you the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps you've heard of Shock Action, Surprise, and Offensive Action?  Kind of hard to achieve Shock Action or Surprise when you see an enemy of opportunity and yell to him "You just stay right there while I get this thing ready and fire bombs that will take a minute to get where you are when I fire them, but whatever you do, don't move in the meantime!".

What you call its only advantage I would be willing to call that a game changer.  Getting rounds on target in 5-10 seconds vs 60 seconds is almost insurmountable.  To make up for that much of a disadvantage, the mortar and ammunition should have to weigh nothing, drop 1000 pound bombs, and shine my boots.

The next CASW advantage is the ability to do precision strikes, which isn't even an option on the 60mm.  You can still use the CASW for area suppression, but you can also use it to hit one guy standing in the open.  So not only do you have a weapon system that is far faster, but it can do more things.

As for my "relative inexperience", the counter to that is that the guys with too much experience are the ones who end up getting everyone killed because they fight the last war.

In WW1 they didn't take machine guns into account.  In WW2 France was overran for relying on area defence.  And now, we are losing in a COIN environment because of people who were trained to fight the Russian hordes.

They can't adapt.  Guys like Rommel can.  The Comd just finishing up in TFK can, and has drastically changed things for the better, specifically because he's not fighting the last war.

 

[Michael OLeary]

As for my "relative inexperience", the counter to that is that the guys with too much experience are the ones who end up getting everyone killed because they fight the last war.

In WW1 they didn't take machine guns into account.  In WW2 France was overran for relying on area defence.  And now, we are losing in a COIN environment because of people who were trained to fight the Russian hordes.

They can't adapt.  Guys like Rommel can.  The Comd just finishing up in TFK can, and has drastically changed things for the better, specifically because he's not fighting the last war.

And, inevitably, you too will be labeled a dinosaur by the next generation.  Try not to take it badly when it happens.  ;D

I'll take my 81s back now, along with Technoviking's proposed updated 60s, and we'll start with actually educating the corps on the use of a family of mortars in conjunction with other weapon systems (including CASW when they are available and appropriate to the task).

 

[vonGarvin]

As for rounds on target being its "only advantage"...giving you the benefit of the doubt here, perhaps you've heard of Shock Action, Surprise, and Offensive Action?  Kind of hard to achieve Shock Action or Surprise when you see an enemy of opportunity and yell to him "You just stay right there while I get this thing ready and fire bombs that will take a minute to get where you are when I fire them, but whatever you do, don't move in the meantime!".
......
In WW1 they didn't take machine guns into account.  In WW2 France was overran for relying on area defence.  And now, we are losing in a COIN environment because of people who were trained to fight the Russian hordes.

They can't adapt.  Guys like Rommel can.  The Comd just finishing up in TFK can, and has drastically changed things for the better, specifically because he's not fighting the last war.

First of all, it's not a case of only 60's or only CASW.  When the enemy is spotted, in a non-descript war, you engage immediately with direct fire weapons.  Shock action, offensive action and all that.

Next, in WW1, they did indeed factor machine guns.  Hence the Machine Gun Corps of Canada and other armies.  In WW2, France was overrun due to shock action and deception by the Germans.  People who were trained to fight the Russian hordes aren't losing the COIN fight in Afstan.  Don't look to Rommel as an adaptor, look to him as a sycophant.  Talk instead of von Manstein, who used his training (from pre-war) to conduct a proper estimate and conduct o proper wargaming to come up with a COA that employed shock action, deception and other factors to outwit his enemy (e.g., US).  Same with the incumbent Comd TFK.  He hasn't had an epiphany, he's simply putting his staff training into effect and using his will to make it happen, much as any commander would.

So, with any infantry attack, there are those who simply place firebases and the like, then there are those who employ their tools to hit the enemy's centre of gravity (Schwerpunkt) and go from there.

 

[Kirkhill]

And while the debate swirls around the notion of support weaponry:

Extra bunker-buster missiles for Afghan front line

Sergeant Ross Jones, Royal Marines, from 42 Commando, who was on the exercise, said the weapon was 'awesome' and added:

"For the people that we support, they know that we have got their back and we are their angel on their shoulders watching their every move and this gives them peace of mind when they move on the ground below us.

Speaking from Afghanistan, Captain Warren Marginson, Second-in-Command of B Company, 3rd Battalion The Rifles, said:

"Javelin is an invaluable asset to troops on the ground. Its accuracy and firepower mean we are now able to handle many more situations on the ground ourselves and reduce the need to call in close air support.

"The weapon is versatile and has the ability to deliver the warhead accurately on target. We now have the ability to strike in day or night and in all weather conditions but more importantly Javelin gives us the ability to identify insurgent activity in all conditions."

Alternatives

 

[GnyHwy]

Yes, I hear that the CASW is able to do so as well; however, the lower mass of the rounds means that they are more vulnerable to atmospheric effects than the 60mm rounds=less dispersion ("PE") on the target area for the 60. 

I gotta disagree with this point.  Yes they are lower mass but they are travelling through a lot less atmosphere as the 60 would be.  That is a reason mortars are unreliable and unsafe in windy conditions and to fire them in those conditions in a danger close situation would be suicide. 

An AGL could be adjusted for wind a lot easier.  I would like to see firing tables for any of the AGLs and have looked with no success.

Also, when we buy the AGL I hope it is at least the MK47.  I have not witnessed it but, I think all will be pleased with it's timed fuse and airburst capability for enemy who hide behind walls.

I can make one guarantee. The persons who are truly hoping we don't get this capability in action are our enemy.

 

[George Wallace]

I can make one guarantee. The persons who are truly hoping we don't get this capability in action are our enemy.

I could comment "Get off your High Horse." but think instead that you are simply confused.  Are you confusing the people who are disagreeing with you, over the fact that they do not want to see the loss/sacrifice of one or more capabilities to the expense of purchasing your "dream" piece of kit with those who truly oppose the ravings of CASW?

 

[Kat Stevens]

I can make one guarantee. The persons who are truly hoping we don't get this capability in action , are our enemy.

Try reading it now, George.

 

[vonGarvin]

I gotta disagree with this point.  Yes they are lower mass but they are travelling through a lot less atmosphere as the 60 would be.  That is a reason mortars are unreliable and unsafe in windy conditions and to fire them in those conditions in a danger close situation would be suicide. 

I don't have the firing tables handy; however, for high angle shots, I'm fairly certain that the max ords for the CASW would be similar to those of the 60, given similar ranges fired at those angles. 
As for "mortars are unreliable and unsafe in windy conditions", I'm well aware of the limitations of any high angle shots, and I'm also quite aware of the danger-close procedures for mortars. 
Now, for mass, remember that the definition of mass to which I am referrring is as follows:

...property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion. The mass of an object is not dependent on gravity and therefore is different from but proportional to its weight.

So, a vehicle-mounted CASW would be ideal.  A ground mounted CASW at the expense of a mortar is folly.  It would hinder the echelon of an infantry company, not to mention be rather limited in its ability to support an infantry attack with no external fire support, the topic of this thread.

 

[GnyHwy]

To all that think I am suggesting the AGL replace mortars, I am not.

I don't have the firing tables handy; however, for high angle shots, I'm fairly certain that the max ords for the CASW would be similar to those of the 60, given similar ranges fired at those angles.

I gotta disagree again on your guess at ballistic info.  I will check on the DWAN tommorrow and get back to you but, judging by some of the Met data sheets for mortars I was able to find at home on the internet the 60 will go well above 1000m max ord. Just a guess but, I can't see the AGL going even above 100m.

I am not sure why so many are snubbing the AGL.  It seems it's been that way since it was first mentioned a few years ago.  Every other army in the world uses them why shouldn't we.

Here are a couple of links on the MK47 if anyone is interested.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mk47.htm
http://www3.ausa.org/webpub/deptarmymagazine.nsf/byid/kgrg-6cuqgt
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/smallarms/Lambr.pdf

 

[Old Sweat]

I know Petard and Gny Hwy as well as the mortar guys are aware of this formula, but the maximum ordinate can be calculated by squaring the time of flight in seconds and then multiplying by four. This gives you a figure in feet and can be converted to metres by a simple calculation - divide by three and subtract 10%.

I had to teach this formula, demonstrating how it was achieved, in a mutual in the ballistics and ammunition phase of my IG course. Theoretically it only works in a vacuum, but it also applies in air and is most accurate for mortars and other high angle fire.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I had to teach this formula, demonstrating how it was achieved, in a mutual in the ballistics and ammunition phase of my IG course. Theoretically it only works in a vacuum, but it also applies in air and is most accurate for mortars and other high angle fire.

Cool... mortars in space. Look out Klendathu!

 

[vonGarvin]

To all that think I am suggesting the AGL replace mortars, I am not.

I gotta disagree again on your guess at ballistic info.  I will check on the DWAN tommorrow and get back to you but, judging by some of the Met data sheets for mortars I was able to find at home on the internet the 60 will go well above 1000m max ord. Just a guess but, I can't see the AGL going even above 100m.

I am not sure why so many are snubbing the AGL.  It seems it's been that way since it was first mentioned a few years ago. 

Hey, I'm not opposed to an AGL.  I am opposed to a CASW replacing the 60, which is the current plan.  The CASW is intended to be able to deliver high angle fire, much like a mortar.  For low-angle shots, similar to those used by a machine gun, of course the max ord is going to be low; however, the CASW is what I am talking about.

Every other army in the world uses them why shouldn't we.

Same can be said of mortar platoons in the infantry, yet we don't have those either 

Anyway, for infantry attacks, even on Klendathu, it comes down to firepower.  In most cases, we employ direct fire weapons (machine guns, rifles, insults, etc).  For infantry to be able to attack effectively on its own, indirect fire weapons (mortars, artillery satire, etc) only add to the fight.

 

[SeanNewman]

Michael, you are right that I will be labeled a dinosaur by future generations, if I do not adapt.  All of my training involved the Grenovians, Stromians, Ventorans, and even a bit of the Fantasians.  Everything I did in training involved two up one back full throttle kill all the enemy.

However, I just got back from a tour doing everything I could (on deaf ears) to convince some key pers to get out of that mindset because of this mission.  Some adapt, some don't.

Techno, I still grant you the advantages that you're offering for the mortar over the CASW.  The biggest problem though with it is that those few advantages that the 60mm has over it are all last century advantages and are all better met by assets that 99% of the time are going to be available any time we ever put 100+ dismounted soldiers in danger.

No you can't guarantee anything, but for the PITA-factor of carrying 2 mortars per man in the Coy, I'll pass thanks.

 

[KevinB]

You cannot dismount an AGL and expect it to keep up in a fight, it is a static position or vehicle mount system.

Secondly having been in a position where the Hk GMG was not deployable, and the small unit also happened to have a next gen 60mm, the 60m was very effective in dealing with the tgt.

I wrote about that little issue in the CASW thread.

 

[Troopasaurus]

Interesting to note that the British Army has reinstalled the light mortar into its kit in Oct 08. This is after doing away with the 51mm Mortar which was to be replaced by the 40mm UGL and the 40mm GMG. Are going to need to go through the same lessons?


http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/285986_ARMY_VEHICLESEQUIPMENT_V12.PDF_web.pdf
Page 9 of above document.

 

[RIFLES]

I've been reading this with some interest being a British Infantry Soldier who prior to being put out grass spent serval years in a Mortar Platoon from Cpl/Sgt MFC to the 2IC running the FDC and G4 for my Platoon.

The 51mm was due to be phased out when we were equipped with the UGL, however we hung onto it when AFG kicked off as it was an ideal system that quickly brought down indirect onto the enemy and allowed assaulting troops to still have fire/smoke in the gap that exists between Last Safe Moment from the Arty/81mm and the forward edge of the enemy position.

We have now adopted a 60mm but unsure as to it's performance, I've not seen or played with it - yet! but I gather that it's been used to good efect.

Interestingly I saw the 51mm being used in a TV programme the other night from last years summer tour in AFG called 'Road Warriors' - a programme about a Transport Regiment from the Royal Logistic Corps.  Interesting viewing when 3 of the vehicles take a wrong turn, get lost and end up putting a truck in the canal.  Four soldiers (incl an 18 year old female) up having a fight with the Taliban while 1 of the vehicles run for help.

Can be seen on the ITV player

http://www.itv.com/presscentre/roadwarriors/ep1wk05/default.html

 

[vonGarvin]

WRT UK employment of the 60mm.
In short, the 51mm was phased out because BAE found it no longer profitable to make the rounds (The UK was its sole customer). 
In 2006, the UK went to Helmand and experienced something similar to what Canada experienced in Kandahar at the same time: two way ranges unlike those experienced for some time (since 1982 for the UK).  With the 51mm on the way out, and the GMG not yet online, an interim replacement was needed as identified in a UOR that went out.  A 60mm Mortar was available so they went with it, FOR AFGHAN EMPLOYED UNITS ONLY.  Well, the squaddies were so impressed with it that it is now being taken on establishment across the UK army.
The GMG (aka "CASW") has its niche, normally mounted, as it is about as man-transportable as a .50 calibre MG. 

I predict that we will realise this, many years from now, and try to find "something" to fill that gap from contact to FFE by the artillery AND something that can outrange DShKs, etc.  I also predict that any 60mm mortar will be denied, "just because".  In other words, DLR will get involved and mess it all up.
Just my opinion: it was free and worth every penny.

 

[SeanNewman]

I will continue to restate what I already have:  There are a few circumstances where a 60mm mortar makes sense than a CASW, however there are more circumstances where a CASW is better, and in those cases is a lot better (namely precision).

Anyway, that dead horse is flogged, and it doesn't matter anyway because there's no rule that says we can only have one.  That would be like saying "would you rather have a rifle or a MG?", or "Would you rather have a pistol or a grenade?".

Now that I think about it, why not just combine the best of both and ask for a grenade machinegun!  Wait a minute, now we're back to square one.

 

[a_majoor]

One thing that is clear is a successful infantry attack needs lots of man portable firepower. The CASW (grenade machinegun AKA automatic grenade launcher) has lots of firepower, but is not portable. The M-203 fires a low velocity grenade, which has issues in range, accuracy and volume of fire needed to suppress the enemy.

Two technological lines of attack are possible. Making smaller DF grenade launchers such as the XM-25 or 12 gauge grenade shells fired from an AA-12 provides portability and high volumes of firepower at the expense of yet another weapons system for the section/platoon to carry.

The other is to make a man portable weapon capable of firing the 40mm high velocity grenade. The ARPAD 600 was such a weapon (designed around a 35mm grenade, but the weapon can be engineered for other calibres), and is small and portable enough to be carried in a vehicle and taken along when the section dismounts (along with the existing 40mm ammunition). This is perhaps the lesser of two evils, since it uses existing ammunition in a man portable format. See more details here

 

[daftandbarmy]

WRT UK employment of the 60mm.
In short, the 51mm was phased out because BAE found it no longer profitable to make the rounds (The UK was its sole customer). 
In 2006, the UK went to Helmand and experienced something similar to what Canada experienced in Kandahar at the same time: two way ranges unlike those experienced for some time (since 1982 for the UK).  With the 51mm on the way out, and the GMG not yet online, an interim replacement was needed as identified in a UOR that went out.  A 60mm Mortar was available so they went with it, FOR AFGHAN EMPLOYED UNITS ONLY.  Well, the squaddies were so impressed with it that it is now being taken on establishment across the UK army.
The GMG (aka "CASW") has its niche, normally mounted, as it is about as man-transportable as a .50 calibre MG. 

I predict that we will realise this, many years from now, and try to find "something" to fill that gap from contact to FFE by the artillery AND something that can outrange DShKs, etc.  I also predict that any 60mm mortar will be denied, "just because".  In other words, DLR will get involved and mess it all up.
Just my opinion: it was free and worth every penny.

As I recall, the 51mm was also one of the most complex 'simple light mortars' in existence, with a weird little trilux sight for night firing, and a variety of attachments that fell into the 'what a good idea' column etc. The bomb was also pretty small, although they had a myriad of different ammo natures when it first came out. I recall that the illum round was quite good. Bring on the 60!