CG440 said:
...Insertion into an integrated indirect fire plan would have to be considered. This alone is a huge doctrinal consideration as the ranges for long 60s reaches the 6km mark and full fire controller training is required. We do not want to see an infantry platoon crew served weapon team burdened with this...
In the LAV Coy or even combat team with tank troops attached OPCOM, you have a variety of hard hitting low trajectory weapons, firing a variety of kinetic and chemical energy munitions. The max effective range of engagement is circa 1800 m (I know things shoot farther, but the vast majority of low trajectory weapons, from GPMG (SF) to Leopard cannon can all engage to that range.) Even without tanks, the most any weapon can fire is just under 2.5 km. The 60mm with current CF ammo can engage just beyond that. In terms of range, it is a nice fit.
The one integral tool missing from the Coy/Cbt Tm tool box is NLOS* capability. Given the nature of the 60mm mortar's external ballistics, and terminal ballistics as a by product of its high angle flight 1, it adds a certain dimension to the all arms battle that is both timely and integral to the coy/cbt tm. It reduces the need for coys to call for fire to the battle group, thus reducing the reaction time required to engage often fleeting targets. As well, it reduces the staff effort required at the battlegroup FSCC as it assists in the destruction of the enemy as part of the all-arms battle. Besides, the FSCC has bigger and better things to worry about, such as the deep battle and coordinating external fire support elements.
The CASW, though able to engage NLOS targets to
some extent, cannot match the 60mm in terms of firepower. With a plethora of low trajectory weapons available to the combat team, there is no niche for the CASW to fill in third tier units. The question that needs to be asked is: on which AFV is it to be mounted? And it certainly does not lend itself to be easily man portable. Though probably a capable weapon system, it just cannot compete with a fully stabilised 25mm auto cannon or certainly not a 120 mm smoothbore fully stablised tank cannon.
As for training section commanders on call for fire, that is a non-starter. The skill sets are being taught now, though certainly not to the level taught to FOOs (or once taught to infantrymen on the advanced mortar course). I highly doubt that we would expect section commanders or platoon commander to make calls for linear targets as one example.
As for plotting the fire at the mortar group/battery, the procedures are really no different than calculating data for indirect machine gun fire, a skill already expected of section commanders in the infantry.
As for integrating the firepower of the 60mm into a fire plan, that is well within the capability of any infantry company commander and tank squadron commander. Let us not forget that they are all staff trained, and have probably already completed a battle group (or higher) staff job, contributing to fireplanning for much greater operations than a combat team hasty attack. To say that integrating the 60mm firepower into a combat team fireplan is too much for a company commander is, in my professional opinion, a non-starter.
Though the CASW may have a niche with tier 2 or tier 1 units, that is not my concern as I am not knowledgable enough about their TTPs to comment on their orbat or weapons. The fact is that we have a battle proven weapon system, though old and tired. I have a much simpler solution: acquire new barrels. We do that when tank barrels reach their maximum EFCs. Why throw the baby out with the bath water?
EDIT: Of course, I neglected to add that the 60mm can also provide the combat team with illumination and screen/blinding capabilities, thus further reducing the strain on the battle group. After all, if integrated with higher assets, the screen/blind missions could easily be carried out by the 60, thus freeing larger calibre weapons to deliver HE on the target.
----------------------------------
1 Due to the projectile impacting at nearly vertical angles, the blast pattern from a mortar bomb is virtually circular when viewed from above, thus maximising its blast potential. Low trajectory weapons that are not shaped charges typically have circular blast patterns as well, but they are vertical, thus losing nearly 50% of its blast potential on impact.
*NLOS: Non Line of Sight
