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

[Journeyman]

I stand corrected.

(Hmm.....I was wrong once before, but the divorce sorted that out. Now, a second time here. I hope this isn't some sort of trend happening    )

 

[Gunner]

After a huge swing off the mortar topic, back to mortars!

 

[little jim]

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?

from an infantry perspective one of the initial trains of thought goes back to the arty command relationships.  The Arty guys love to tell you they are a Div level asset (usually “We’re a higher level asset”), mortars didn’t get taken away from the Bn Comd – hence the old role of mortars to provide “guaranteed, intimate, indirect fire.”

No longer the case with the tubes with the gunners.

 

[warrickdll]

from an infantry perspective one of the initial trains of thought goes back to the arty command relationships.  The Arty guys love to tell you they are a Div level asset (usually “We’re a higher level asset”), mortars didn’t get taken away from the Bn Comd – hence the old role of mortars to provide “guaranteed, intimate, indirect fire.”

No longer the case with the tubes with the gunners.

Historically (and I'm not a historian) I would be in full agreement - for an infantry battalion to operate and maneuver it did require evolving into its own task force complete with CSS, signals, recce, indirect fire, engineer, and armoured defence capabilities.

But a couple of things have changed:

1) The guaranteed part has ended. The CF has long since passed the day when the Infantry battalion as a predefined minor task force is deployed in that configuration.

And diffusing other capabilities down to a predefined Task Force similar to:

...
My suggestion was for a combined arms battle group / task force permanently organized as such.
...

would just be perpetuating the Infantry battalion as a predefined minor task force but a partial step higher, and, if embedded into the battalion, would also lead to problems such as:

...
The Americans tried permanently embedding things like FOO parties etc into the supported arm organization and found it didn't work.  They became the Queen of RSM's detail and tended to do anything but their combat job.  In addition, they were unable maintain skills associated with lower-level Battle Task Standards.

2) The actual capabilities of mortars (even the 81mm), combined with communication and tactical awareness capabilities, have increased to a point where mortars can be effectively used as supporting fire for other units (very much my opinion) - in which case the artillery view may not be too off-base.

Note: I also believe this applies to the TOW system, whereas I believe a mechanized battalion has outstretched the capabilities of the old Aslt Pnr platoon (again, very much my opinion) and requires the brigade's CER be expanded.



I'm not disagreeing with how well the infantry previously handled the mortar task, or how happy the CO was knowing that this was all completely theirs, but can't all this be mitigated by doctrine and training?

And, since there aren't separate PYs for the task anyways, how effective would it be to have a rifle company partially double-hatted as a mortar platoon?

One thing is for sure though - nobody from the infantry side of the house wants them left on a shelf.

 

[warrickdll]

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  :-\

rampage800 - Thanks, I only just noticed your earlier post. I would have assumed that 1 gun would be able to crew 2 mortars, but everything else I've read seems to state 1 for 1 - maybe because there are only 6 tubes sent over? - But even then it would seem to make more sense to allocate 2 mortars per gun and leave a few guns without mortars.

 

[vonGarvin]

Anyone see what's wrong on this photo?

 

[George Wallace]

Ramp not full dropped, putting extra stress on cables and hydraulics?

Ammo stacked too close to Carrier and tubes?

Tubes too close together?

Gun Aiming posts laying on ground between tubes?

Officer is pigeoned toed, crossed knee'd, and doesn't know where to find cover to pee behind?

Sun setting in the East?

 

[vonGarvin]

RE: ramp.  Probably not.  There could be a "jerry" can under it.
re: Ammo.  No probs.  rounds easily accessible for the loader (#2) to get them from the batboy, er, #3.
re: closeness of mortars.  BINGO!  Now, I know that the threat of the countermortar fire of the DAG of the 15th Motor Rifle Division is virtually nil, but in order to get the best spread (eg: beaten zone) at the other end and also to lessen hearing loss on fellow crewmen/gunners or whatever the heck they call them these days, they should be a min of 20 m apart.  I'm no rocket scientist, but that doesn't look like a 20 m spread.
re: Aiming posts on ground: BINGO!  They haven't established AAP.  "What if" the AP goes down?  (windstorm, dust devil, camel, whatever).
Re: Officer.  Isn't that SOP being like that? 

 

[rampage800]

VG

Good observation and I can only speculate why the tubes are like that however I will offer this:

1. the tubes are on a 777 posn (which they were) and they had CP & FC which means your relying on the computer(IFCCS) for your fall of shot on the ground and not firing parallel.

2. the aiming point thing is kind of a moot point because we can't see the whole pic (ie being gunners they probably would have set GAP 1 up Left front, which we can't see and GAP 2 usually Left rear which we also can't see) I have no idea why the aiming posts are where they are and won't even speculate on that.

Anyhow just a couple of points, trying to give the guys the benefit of the doubt but you guys are definitely right on the money about the Whistleheads ;D

 

[Arius]

Since we don't talk about AGLs here anymore, I would suggest starting another thread on the future use of mortars in the Army.  I would be interested in some real debate and informed opinions.

There is a lot of circular thinking going on and at some point we just rant emotionally and compare apples to oranges.  Linking pictures of the 51/60mm doesn’t add anything really.  How about linking the 120mm mortars of every country that consider the 60mm as irrelevant and chooses not to bother with it?

There is no data to support the effectiveness of the 60mm in comparisons of other systems and that’s why the 60mm doesn’t fit at this point.  We do our own researches for our own needs and if the 60mm had proven its worth it would have been retained - BTW: Still 0 killed in Afg and the current TF often doesn't bother to even bring it out.  We love our Brits, US and other allied friends and I'm sure they have their own reasoning that applies to their situation.  Right now, we cannot spend $6M of P,O&M every year on an ineffective weapon (Yes I said ineffective and read all the previous posts about the Carl Gustav/40 mm mix and line of sight engagements before flaming).

As an aside: For your information on why we bought relatively expensive tanks and planes on short notice; some major Crown projects were unexpectedly delayed and the money became available to be spent asap as it cannot be carried forward.  That’s why those projects where fast-tracked.  It was not possible to ramp up and commit the money without going off-the-shelf immediately.  Not pretty but the only way to keep the money within DND.  Since there was no plan to retain or replace the 60mm there was no money spent for it. 

More on topic:  This week the CASW has passed the legal review and the financial verifications were completed by Fin CS.  It is cleared to go to Project Management Board in March and Treasury Board in May.  The thing is coming.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Thanks for staying in the discussion here Arius. Very helpful.

 

[Big Red]

While the kill radius on the 60mm is small, I have seen it used effectively on friendlies resulting in several KIAs.

A small mortar certainly has a place. Where I6 and I were a while ago there were poor lines of sight due to the built up area. If we stuck around there I had 2 bipod 60s and 1 standalone 60 lined up that we were going to incorporate into our alamo plans.  Sometimes it's nice to be able to drop HE on the next block over.

Mind you I've also been within meters of landing 60mms before without ill effect (well they made us get out of the pool)

 

[vonGarvin]

Since we don't talk about AGLs here anymore, I would suggest starting another thread on the future use of mortars in the Army.  I would be interested in some real debate and informed opinions.

There is a lot of circular thinking going on and at some point we just rant emotionally and compare apples to oranges.  Linking pictures of the 51/60mm doesn’t add anything really.  How about linking the 120mm mortars of every country that consider the 60mm as irrelevant and chooses not to bother with it?

Agreed that this should perhaps start a new thread/join an existing thread (if one already exists)

120mm Mortars and very different animals from the 60.  Yes, they fire high angle, but that's about it.  To me, it would be just as wrong as to compare a sniper rifle to a sub machine gun: both are shot by one person and they both shoot bullets, but that's about it.
I would offer that 120's, given their range, firepower and fire potential are a higher level asset, requiring that coordination of assets that is not required of a 60.  Does the 60 have limitations?  Naturally; however, it is not ineffective either.  Even if we took only kills it makes as a measure of its potential, we would be missing a great part of it: morale.  Actually, the shock effect that 4 mortars firing 10 rounds rapid on one area can very easily cause someone to download some brown matter and revert to self preservation vice try to kill us.
Anyway, I can offer more; however, I'm rather busy.  I'll touch back in shortly.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Here is a good example of where I'd like to have a 60mm MOR handy. 8-10 bombs in the air at once would sort this out pretty sharpish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tJYj2zRm2U&feature=related

And, if we want to get rid of our old light mortars, it looks like there's an army here willing to take them off our hands:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoccaN-TmmA

 

[McG]

Just to add some more depth to this debate, how does the 51 mm mortar compare to the 60 mm mortar?  Would Canadian mortar proponents support going to a lighter light mortar?

No idea on the 51 -- the 60 has a pretty poor payload as is -- I wonder what the 51's is?
*the 40mm has an even more pathetic burting radius -- but is still pretty good for the intended role (not IDF) with the HEDP round.

Since the 60mm is US issue - and alledgedly Cdn SOF issue as well -  IMHO it makes more sense to adopt a modern 60...

The payload on the 51mm ranges from about the same as some 60mm bombs (140-160 grams of HE) to half of some (some 60mm have 300 grams).  The effective danger area is much larger than a 40mm grenade, and will be approximately equal to a 60mm.
...

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I would be interested in some real debate and informed opinions.

There is no data to support the effectiveness of the 60mm in comparisons of other systems and that’s why the 60mm doesn’t fit at this point.  We do our own researches for our own needs and if the 60mm had proven its worth it would have been retained - BTW: Still 0 killed in Afg and the current TF often doesn't bother to even bring it out. 

I'm not well informed (I am a tanker) but I do have opinions.

The 60mm mortar was quite popular in 2006.  One company after a particularly long firefight (one of the first major ones) supported by 25mm, M203, 155mm and even CAS made the point that they had regretted leaving their mortars behind due to manning shortfalls and that they would never do that again.  The 60mm was employed frequently in firefights, and was sometimes used to flush enemy out of compounds at close range into the open where they could be effectively engaged with other systems.  It could be quickly dismounted from the back of a LAV or loaded onto a CH-47.  Ammo carriage could be broken down with some ease.  The 60mm also gave platoon houses a simple but effective means for self-defence against enemy on or behind ridgelines.  Our US allies also very much valued their 81mm and 60mm mortars even though they had a metric ****-load of Mk19 grenade launchers.  I know that the CASW is more than a Mk19, but I just throw that out there.

Still, it is easy to make demands without having to make the cuts at higher level and I understand that resources are finite and that sometimes less systems is better.  

Cheers

 

[daftandbarmy]

If we get rid of our mortars, it looks like they can use them in Iraq:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoccaN-TmmA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKUG58s1J5g&feature=related

 

[Royal]

No Allied country that has an AGL has no mortars.  Fact, the CASW does not replace the effects of the mortars, but the 60 is tired and worn out/rusting out.  It is not so much the tubes as the baseplates that casue the necessity to reduce the max range fired, also...key point, in order to buy one thing, we have to allocate an amount of money, that if we tried to do both projects (CASW + 60mm upgrade) we would get neither well enough to do the job.  It is also good to remember that since we don't have mortars, how many current and capable MFCs do we still have?  I assume that you all have looked at the overall culpability of indicriminate indirect fire.  btw: we lost Mor/Pnr platoons to re-allocate PYs (person years) to stand-up CMTC.  At the time we were maxed-out on military manning, so to create a new, necessary training facility, we had to get people from somewhere.  Look at the "redundancy" issue with the Arty and our Mortars and the Engrs and our Pnrs.  We did not go down without a fight, but we did realize that we needed to give in in order to survive to fight another day.

The Infantry are looking at the capability gap that we will have once the CASW reaches FOC and the 60 retires.  What level of indirect sp do we need?  Who mans it?  Who controls the fire?  many questions.  Do we strip 18 men out of the 150 man companies?  Take the dismount number down from 7 to 5?  45 dismounts from a Coy is not much to fight through and do the clearance with extreme prejudice.  btw: the Inf is re-creating the pioneer capability, not the platoon, but a course to give some much needed skills to the sections.  All with the blessing of the CLS.  So we are getting back what we need, just a little slower and while fighting the priorities.

Here's a thought, the 81mms that the Arty only use as a close protection weapon!  If they need close protection in the form of Mortars, and already have a GBFG M777, why do we not have them in the Infantry Too?  Don't we need indirect close protection in the ADO concept?  Let's take the 81 back and give them some CASW for close protection, it would work better for them!

 

[vonGarvin]

What level of indirect sp do we need?  Who mans it?  Who controls the fire?  many questions.  Do we strip 18 men out of the 150 man companies?  Take the dismount number down from 7 to 5?  45 dismounts from a Coy is not much to fight through and do the clearance with extreme prejudice.

Those are very good questions.  The solution may not be as expensive as one would think. 
What level of indirect fire do we need?  I'm not sure, but some integral indirect fire at the coy or bn level is, in my opinion, a necessity.  I love the guns, but they usually have bigger and better targets to shoot at than a platoon dug in on a reverse slope.  I know that today we have an artillery outfit for one BG on ops, but suppose we have TWO BGs, then that fire is no longer guaranteed.
Who mans it?  I couldn't care less.  Postal clerks even!  Just as long as it's manned is all.
Who controls the fire?  See above; however, I would offer that BASIC fire controlling is rather easy to do, and could be incorporated into the DP 3A course (infantry).
Do we strip 18 men out of the 150 man companies?  I would.  If you lack in fire support (talking conventional fights here), then you can have all the "bayonets" you want, and it won't mean a lick.
Dismounts from 7 to 5?  Sure.  I mean, that's 2 fewer C7A2s, but that's also more 60mm/40mm/xxmm to shoot even before they dismount.

 

[McG]

There was a request to split the mortar discussion out of the CASW thread in order to focus on mortar issues.  That was done, but then the CASW discussion started sliding into the mortar thread.  Now, after some cleaning up, things are back where they should be.  Lets try to keep it that way:

• Discussions of mortars & their employment go in this thread:  http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/22545.0.html
• The MG vs CASW vs Mortar debate goes back into the other thread: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/28805.0.html

Cheers,
The Staff.