• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

  • Thread starter Meditations in Green
  • Start date
With respect to you and the staff MCG I think your effort to "stovepipe" the discussion is at the heart of the problem here.  You are trying to order the discussion along the lines of the system and not the effect.  The purpose of all of the systems is to supply "portable" supporting fires for the platoon/company/battalion.  The operational decisions as to what type of targets are best engaged by what type of system and under whose command and control are the crux of the discussion.

I don't think it really matters whether the supporting fire comes from a mangonel, a sapper with a keg of black powder and a match, a mortar, a howitzer or a nuclear missile.  The issues are not the means but the timely delivery of effective support. That is why this discussion keeps wrapping itself around itself.
 
Kirkhill said:
With respect to you and the staff MCG I think your effort to "stovepipe" the discussion is at the heart of the problem here.  You are trying to order the discussion along the lines of the system and not the effect. 
No.  The participants wanted a mortar thread separate form the CASW thread.  If you have a problem with it, go post in another thread.  If you want to talk systems to provide close suppression (an effect) then go the the CASW thread (linked above).  If want to talk about mortars, post here.

Quite simply Kirhill, if you want to talk a bout A, then go to the thread about A.  This is the thread about B (which was specifically asked for) so if you want to post about B go ahead and do it here.  Respect the topic participants' wishes:
Arius said:
Since we don't talk about AGLs here anymore, I would suggest starting another thread on the future use of mortars in the Army. 

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
Agreed that this should perhaps start a new thread/join an existing thread (if one already exists)
 
Kirkhill said:
With respect to you and the staff MCG I think your effort to "stovepipe" the discussion is at the heart of the problem here.  You are trying to order the discussion along the lines of the system and not the effect.  The purpose of all of the systems is to supply "portable" supporting fires for the platoon/company/battalion.  The operational decisions as to what type of targets are best engaged by what type of system and under whose command and control are the crux of the discussion.

I don't think it really matters whether the supporting fire comes from a mangonel, a sapper with a keg of black powder and a match, a mortar, a howitzer or a nuclear missile.  The issues are not the means but the timely delivery of effective support. That is why this discussion keeps wrapping itself around itself.

Since I have gotten lost in the threads here I will march to the sound of the guns.

While I agree that discussions should focus on desired effects we cannot divorce ourselves from the practicality of the means of delivery.  A general may not care if the fire from from a mangonel or a howitzer, but the guy who has to fit the mangonel into his LAV platoon does care.  Similarily, the guy you ask to carry that keg of black powder may have some opinions as well.  A weapon can have great effects, but if it is complicated, heavy, hard to get out of the vehicle or comes with a high manpower bill it may not get used.


 
Tango2Bravo said:
A weapon can have great effects, but if it is complicated, heavy, hard to get out of the vehicle or comes with a high manpower bill it may not get used.

Sorry, I thought this thread was about mortars, not ERYX.  ;D
 
I guess its easy to lose sight of the topic as CASW is supposed to replace mortars. However, the members here may have scored enough points to maybe keep mortars AND add CASW. Mortars are essential to the infantry battalion both in the light infantry role and mechanized/motorized. The unit may not always be able to get CAS or even artillery fire support and thus needs the means to engage the enemy at arms reach. With RAP type rounds available for the mortar as well as PGM the infantry mortar can now compete with artillery this is particularly true with the 120mm mortar. The French have added wheels to their 120 making it easier to employ quickly. In motorized/mech units the only mortar needed is the 120mm. The Russians are huge fans of mortars and have fielded 160mm and 240mm versions. I think at some point the larger mortars lack the flexibility and range of 155mm artillery. Fighting in rugged mountainous terrain the mortar is essential equipment. When the 10th Mountain deployed to Afganistan in 2001 they left behind their mortars and arty. The 101st brigade commander made it optional for the company commanders - some brought them along and were glad they did. Others wished they had. For me it should not have been optional and both artillery and mortars are necessary because bad weather means no CAS. If you dont have mortars you are screwed.

french_mortar.jpg
 
tomahawk6 said:
I guess its easy to lose sight of the topic as CASW is supposed to replace mortars.
Only the light mortar.  Do you think the gap could be covered by employing medium mortars at lower levels of Comd?
 
MCG said:
Only the light mortar.  Do you think the gap could be covered by employing medium mortars at lower levels of Comd?

Yes I do after all the US Army has had the 81mm and 120mm mortars in the battalion mortar platoon, although it looks to me that the 120mm may just replace the 81mm entirely. In the Stryker company for example we see the 120mm mortar section replacing the 81mm section. The USMC is looking at the Dragon Fire II system mounted in their LAV. I like the Dragon Fire as it is an automatic system and if coupled with a counter battery radar would be a very potent system.
dragonfireii.jpg
 
Related FYI:
Mortars

Mortars had existed as a form of heavy artillery for centuries, but in 1914 the German Army introduced a limited number of small, cheap, portable minenwerfers, which were breech-loading, low-trajectory mortars. Other armies quickly copied the minenwerfer, and in March 1915, the English engineer Wilfred Stokes developed the grandfather of all current infantry mortars, the 3-inch muzzle-loading Stokes mortar.19 This weapon was much simpler to manufacture than artillery and therefore was employed extensively in all armies during the war.

All maneuver units require indirect fire to win. Mortars provide unique indirect fires that are organizationally responsive to the ground maneuver commander. Military history has repeatedly demonstrated the effectiveness of mortars. Their rapid, high-angle, plunging fires are invaluable against dug-in enemy troops and targets in defilade, which are not vulnerable to attack by direct fires. Although they are part of the total fire support system, mortar sections and platoons are not simply small artillery batteries. They play a unique and vital role on the AirLand Battlefield.

Mortars allow the maneuver commander to quickly place killing indirect fires on the enemy, independent of whether he has been allocated supporting artillery. Heavy forces use carrier-mounted mortars to allow the mortar platoon to move cross-country at speeds compatible with the battalion task force. Light forces use wheeled vehicles or hand carry mortars into firing positions. Some companies have light mortars that can be manpacked across all terrain. All mortar sections and platoons exist to provide immediate, organizationally responsive fires that can be used to meet the rapid changes in the tactical situation on the AirLand Battlefield.

The urban environment greatly restricts low-angle indirect fires because of overhead masking. While all indirect fire weapons are subject to overhead masking, mortars are less affected than field artillery weapons due to the mortar's higher trajectory. For low-angle artillery fire, dead space is about five times the height of the building behind which the target sits. For mortar fire, dead space is only about one-half the height of the building. Because of these advantages, mortars are even more important to the infantry during urban combat.

Not only can mortars fire into the deep defilade created by tall buildings, but they can also fire out of it. Mortars emplaced behind buildings are difficult for the enemy to locate accurately and even harder for him to hit with counterfire. Because of their lightweight, even heavy mortars can be hand carried to firing positions that may not be accessible to vehicles.

Mortars can be fired through the roof of a ruined building if the ground-level flooring is solid enough to withstand the recoil. If there is only concrete in the mortar platoon's area, mortars can be fired using sandbags as a buffer under the baseplate and curbs as anchors and braces. (This is recommended only when time is not available to prepare better firing area.) Aiming posts can be placed in dirt-filled cans.

The 60-mm and 81-mm mortars of the US Army have limited effect on structural targets. Even with delay fuzes they seldom penetrate more than the upper stories of light buildings. However, their wide area coverage and multioption fuzes make them useful against an enemy force advancing through streets, through other open areas, or over rubble. The 120-mm mortar is moderately effective against structural targets. With a delay fuze setting, it can penetrate deep into a building and create great destruction.

Mortar platoons often operate as separate firing sections during urban combat. The lack of large open areas can preclude establishing a platoon firing position. Two mortar sections, which are separated by only one street, can be effective in massing fires and be protected from countermortar fire by employing defilade and dispersion. All three of the standard mortar projectiles are useful during combat in urban areas. High-explosive fragmentation is the most commonly used round. WP is effective in starting fires in buildings and forcing the enemy out of cellars and light-frame buildings, and is the most effective mortar round against dug-in enemy tanks. Even near misses blind and suppress the tank crew, forcing them to button up.

The artificial relief of urban terrain reduces wind speed and increases atmosphere mixing, so mortar smoke tends to persist longer and give greater coverage in urban areas than in open terrain.

Urban masking impacts the use of illumination. In urban areas, it is often necessary to plan illumination behind friendly positions placing friendly troops in shadows and enemy troops in the light. Illumination rounds are difficult to adjust and are often of limited use because of the deep canyon nature of the urban area. Rapidly shifting wind currents in urban areas also affect mortar illumination, making it less effective.

The multioption fuze on newer US mortar rounds makes them effective weapons on urban terrain. Delay settings can increase penetration slightly, while proximity bursts can increase the lethal area covered by fragments. Tall buildings can cause proximity fuzed mortar rounds to detonate prematurely if they pass too closely.

The US currently has five models of mortars.

Light mortar
The 60-mm mortar, M224, provides air assault, airborne, ranger, and light infantry rifle companies with an effective, efficient, and flexible weapon. The inherent limitations of a light mortar (short-range and small-explosive charge) can be minimized by careful planning and a thorough knowledge of its capabilities. The M224 can be employed in several different configurations. The lightest weighs about 18 pounds; the heaviest weighs about 45 pounds. Each round weighs about 4 pounds.

The 60-mm mortar round cannot penetrate most rooftops, even with a delay setting. Small explosive rounds are effective, however, in suppressing snipers on rooftops and preventing roofs from being used by enemy observers. The 60-mm WP round is not normally a good screening round due to its small area of coverage. In urban combat, however, the tendency of smoke to linger and the small areas to be screened make it more effective. During the battle for Hue in South Vietnam, 60-mm WP rounds were used to create small, short-term, smoke screens to conceal movement across open areas such as parks, plazas, and bridges. Fragments from 60-mm HE rounds landing as close as 10 feet away cannot penetrate a single sandbag layer or a single-layer brick wall. The effect of a 60-mm mortar HE round that achieves a direct hit on a bunker or fighting position is equivalent to 1 or 2 pounds of TNT. Normally, the blast will not collapse a properly constructed bunker but can cause structural damage. The 60-mm mortar will not normally crater a hard-surfaced road.

Medium mortars
The 81-mm mortars, M29A1 and M252, are the current US medium mortars. The M252 is replacing the M29A1, but both will remain in the Army inventory for several years. Medium mortars offer a compromise between the light and heavy mortars. Their range and explosive power is greater than the M224, yet they are still light enough to be man-packed over long distances. The M29A1 weighs about 98 pounds. The M252 is slightly lighter, about 93 pounds. Both can be broken down into several smaller loads for easier carrying. Rounds for these mortars weigh about 15 pounds each.

The 81-mm mortar has much the same effect against urban targets as the 60-mm mortar. It has a slightly greater lethal area and its smoke rounds (WP and RP) are more effective. A direct hit is equivalent to about 2 pounds of TNT. The 81-mm round cannot significantly crater a hard-surfaced road. With a delay setting, the 81-mm round can penetrate the roofs of light buildings.

Heavy mortars
The 107-mm mortar, M30, and the 120-mm mortar, M120, are the current US heavy mortars. The M120 is replacing the M30, but both will remain in the US inventory for several years. The M30 is a rifled mortar, stabilizing its projectile by spinning it rapidly. The M120, like all other US mortars, fires fin-stabilized ammunition from a smooth bore. Although heavy mortars require trucks or tracked mortar carriers to move them, they are still much lighter than field artillery pieces. They outrange light and medium mortars, and their explosive power is much greater. The M30 weighs about 675 pounds. The M120 is much lighter at about 320 pounds. Rounds for the 107-mm mortar weigh about 28 pounds. Those for the 120-mm mortar weigh almost 33 pounds each.

The 120-mm mortar is large enough to have a major effect on common urban targets. It can penetrate deep into a building, causing extensive damage because of its explosive power. A minimum of 18 inches of packed earth or sand is needed to stop the fragments from a 120-mm HE round impacting 10 feet away. The effect of a direct hit from a 120-mm round is equivalent to almost 10 pounds of TNT, which can crush fortifications built with commonly available materials. The 120-mm mortar round can create a large but shallow crater in a road surface, but it is not deep or steep-sided enough to block vehicular movement. However, craters could be deep enough to damage or destroy storm drain systems, water and gas pipes, and electrical or phone cables.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mortars.htm
 
120mm automatic would seem to be an interesting way ahead.  Let’s brainstorm about the deficiencies of the M777 compared to a 120mm - Or just problems with the M777.  What would be the reasons why we need a heavy mortar at unit level?  What are the comparisons in favour of a 120mm?  What is the cost in $ and men to operate both in similar situations?  What would be the cost of a 120mm PGMs versus an Excalibur round?  Etc.  Maybe there could money thrown at this if we find enough reasons. 

Discuss.
 
A LAV 120mm would give the Mech Bn commander a ton of muscle and having his organic fire support for operations.  I have zero ideas on the capabilities of said system though, just a huge fan of Infantry having organic firesupport.

I still beleive the 81 and 60mm Mortars need to be retained for Light Infantry (and 60 for Mech units regardless of the AGL/CASW acquistion.)  Unlike the treasury board I am a firm beleiver it is better to have items in the toolbox even if they cannot be crewed on the standard TO&E.

I beg to differ on the 81 cratering roads -- and the 81mm Illum round offers way more light and dwell than the 105mm Arty round does -- and unequalled in terms of illum for an Infantry unit.

 
MCG said:
Only the light mortar.  Do you think the gap could be covered by employing medium mortars at lower levels of Comd?

Absolutely. The only problem is that if you ONLY have 81 mm MOR available in the BG, then there can be more targets than tubes.
 
daftandbarmy said:
..... there can be more targets than tubes.

With respect D&B is that always a risk no matter how many tubes you have?  Doesn't that argue for having reserve capability to draw on if one section of the "front" finds itself heavily engaged? (ie a Brigade Mortar Company/Battery in addition to the Battalion Mortar Platoon?)

Also getting back to Arius's offering (120-Auto vs 155), how about bringing the Wolf with the 81 back on line?  Perhaps put the 120s into a Brigade asset?  As an Arty "tool"?

My rationale is that IF there is a serious effort to reduce the number of "tools" that have to be supported then the 81/3" caliber of mortars have a long track record of being highly flexible and effective.  They are man-packable, SP-capable.  They are very effective with a good supply of ammunition (such as the 90 or so rounds per tube carried in the Wolf IIRC).  And they have already demonstrated an ability to support PGMs (The Merlin Anti-Tank round predated the 120mm Strix round and was effective albeit at a reduced payload - I would be interested to know the cost of building a single Merlin round these days given the common availability of that which 15 years ago was highly exotic technology).

Also, given our all-singing, all-dancing infantry - (sorry Infidel-6 - I think you are just going to have to increase the amount of PT that our Panzer-Grenadiers get and call it good) then the 81 could be employed to support the Battalion's Companies in long-range "light" taskings,  dismounted taskings adjacent to LAV-able routes, and also on fully mounted taskings.

Having put my chips on the 81 at Battalion level (perhaps increase the number of tubes - I remember seeing some staff exercise effort calling for 10 tubes (presumably 2/Coy and 4 at Battalion) - and always assuming the necessary numbers of PYs MCG and dapaterson  ;D ) then I think you oould look at the discussion on the  120 vs 155 as Formation assets.

I have never been able to see the 120 as a unit asset because while you can make the tube available to the Unit, regardless of the role, the ammunition requires a truck or two to be effective.  It seems to me it works as a solution for the Stryker Brigades with their dedication to their Armoured Trucks, and even they leave their 120s in the similar role as the 81s in the Wolf (ie dismountable for remote or static deployment).    The 120 Auto systems seem to be potential ammunition hogs, with a need for a couple of trucks of ammo, and because they are not dismountable restricted to LAV-able (ok CV90/Puma-able too) terrain.

Does the 120 bring anything to the Battlefield that a combination of 81's and 155s doesn't?  Would the money spent on fielding AMOS be better spent on adding some PzHb2000 to the M777 gun-line?
 
I have to admit I've not read through the thread and am totally out of my depth here. Having said that, what happened to the Bison mortar plates? Can they not be used in some capacity?
 
I like the idea of the 120mm mortar system. there is the stryker moratr carrier (NO, I am not talking about the delco turreted version either) that carries 60 x rounds 120mm. From what I understand and looking at the US SBCT,
2 x 120mm mortars per company (belongs to the coy not opcon or anything like that)
then there is an additional mortar platoon within the battalion.

They are putting a heavy emphasis on 120mm for mounted and 60mm for dismounted.

I am very expirienced with our 81mm and 60mm. If we could get 120mm mounted, then I would say ditch 81mm. 60 is ideal for humping through mountains but 81 is a bitch of a system to carry dismounted. Plus realistically a 3-4 man 60 det can carry about 16-20 rounds (really start filling their rucks).

120mm lethality from what I understand is excellent. So maybe a combination of 120mm and 60mm is the way to go.
 
Although the 120 mm is excellent in terms of fire power, one really has to look at the range that they have and ask if a company needs that kind of reach out.  I don't have the answer for that, and maybe the answer is "yes", but the 81 is excellent for "other" missions, such as illumination (not only because it's bright, but because use of mortars for illum and smoke frees up the 155 for the lethal missions). 
 
I'd be interested to know how much study has gone into mortar size.  While I'm not sure when the first 120 mm came about, the 60 mm & 81 mm can trace roots back to the Second World War.  I recognize that there are economies that can come from using the same ammunition as allies, and I know those are the calibers for which PGM and other high-tech rounds are developed.  However, if we will only have one or two sizes of mortar, isn't there the slightest possibility that we may be better suited by a bore size different than those used by countries with three sizes of mortar?  Could a 100 mm bring us a happy medium between 81 and 120, or would we instead find ourselves with something that lacks the hitting power to defeat fortified targets, has limited ammo load due to size & a slower rate of fire which reduces effectiveness against softer targets?  If there is a better tube size for armies like ours, then there will be a market for such a tube in some of the smaller NATO countries & eventually the PGMs will make their way.

Infidel-6 said:
I beg to differ on the 81 cratering roads
In that you feel they can significantly crater a hard-surfaced road?
 
MCG said:
In that you feel they can significantly crater a hard-surfaced road?

In that I have seen them significantly crater hard surfaced roads.

I would suggest based on my observations - roads in Iraq and Afghanistan are typically built to a much poorer standard than a North American road would be (of both roads and mortat impacts).  That over here a mortar can make a section of road unusable, and a few rounds can make the road impassible for wheeled light vehicle (Hummer, GunTruck, Suburban) as well as NTV Convoy traffic.
  MRAP, FOX, Buffalo, Stryker etc can still travers (at risk of tire damages) but the others are forced off road or to go alt route.

I have no idea what a 81mm will do to a North American road, nor do I ever feel inclined to want to find out.  I can also see road contruction methods (especially concrete) can have a huge affect on the ability of it to sustain damage and remain a serviceable SR
 
Kirkhill said:
With respect D&B is that always a risk no matter how many tubes you have?  Doesn't that argue for having reserve capability to draw on if one section of the "front" finds itself heavily engaged? (ie a Brigade Mortar Company/Battery in addition to the Battalion Mortar Platoon?)

I guess the principle here is 'do it yourself' wherever possible, as fast as possible. So, if a platoon commander needs smoke and HE for a quick attack on an few bad guys shootuing at you from a treeline 3-600m away, he/she can get it right now merely by saying "Bloggins, blow that treeline up for awhile while we go get 'em!" vs. waiting for a higher level fire misson, which might not be available when needed - like RIGHT now.

If the Pl Comd has to wait for a Cecil B Demile Production (cast of thousands, millions of dollars, years in the making) it might be too late to be successful.
 
I’m not an authority on this but what I remember is that the 120mm mortar became a standard since it was the biggest practical calibre for a mortar.  The weight of the round and the length of the tube becomes an issue eventually.  Not sure what the ratio calibre/length is but you need to breech-load at some point and the weapon gets more complicated.  That being said, there are some 160mm muzzle loaded but they are rare.

A heavy mortar round was found necessary to get at dug in troups and go through structures in urban areas.  Latest experiences in Beirut and Grozny seems to validate WW2 stories.

We came close – twice – to get a 120mm.  In early 90s it was scrapped by personality conflicts amongst a few generals and in 02 it was blocked by the tap-dancing around the mortar platoons issue and the future introduction of the M777.

The honeymoon with the M777 is almost over as the bride has shown to be higher maintenance and less versatile than anticipated.  A rugged, high mobility 120mm which would be cheaper and require fewer servants could be interesting now.

 
Back
Top