B
Brock
Guest
cbtygunner:
If you were to have a 120mm mortar system--in place of towed 105mm howitzers for mechanized battle group support--would you prefer a turreted mortar system like the Delco Defense Armoured Mortar System or Patria AMOS or a turntable mounted system like the current "Wolf" (converted Bison)equipped with 81mm on turntable mount. Both have positives and negatives with the former more costly, but better response times and a limited direct fire capability. The turntable mounted mortars are inherently more flexible, because they can be dismounted in the towed role at will and are significantly cheaper in all respects. They do have slightly slower response times, no direct fire capability, but slightly less armour protection with the open top of the vehicle when firing. Personnaly, I like the AMOS or AMS concept for mechanized forces best, but the turntable mount is definitely more appealing in these very cost constrained times.
Old Army Guy:
Check out www.army-technology.com for some basic info on the M777 under the "product index" link. I disagree with your incorporation of a 40mm AGL per platoon. The weigt of the systems is simply too high even in their current lightest form (ie. General Dynamic Mk. 47 Striker). It is not just the system weight, because that could probably be managed--just barely. The ammunition, more specifically a useful load simply could not be carried by an infantry platoon. I concede it may be possible at the company level, but unless the weight problem is solved it is a no go. However, there is potential in your proposal if the XM307 25mm Objective Combat Support Weapon (OCSW) comes to fruition. Check out www.generaldynamics.com under its land systems division lethality systems grouping. However, an AGL can not provide the very specific small scale indirect fire support that an infantry rifle company receives from a 60mm lightweight mortar.
Personnally, in my experience the 60mm mortar‘s potential is wasted when grouped individually in the handheld role at the platoon level 99 times out of 100 in most situations. If used at the company level in a small section of two tubes in the tripod role (plus a third carried by the CQ truck as a spare or for specific missions), the 60mm would be far more effective. Furthermore, the M203A1 has largely replaced the 60mm mortars role for platoon needs and if the 60mm mortar is really needed, one can be attached.
If you were to have a 120mm mortar system--in place of towed 105mm howitzers for mechanized battle group support--would you prefer a turreted mortar system like the Delco Defense Armoured Mortar System or Patria AMOS or a turntable mounted system like the current "Wolf" (converted Bison)equipped with 81mm on turntable mount. Both have positives and negatives with the former more costly, but better response times and a limited direct fire capability. The turntable mounted mortars are inherently more flexible, because they can be dismounted in the towed role at will and are significantly cheaper in all respects. They do have slightly slower response times, no direct fire capability, but slightly less armour protection with the open top of the vehicle when firing. Personnaly, I like the AMOS or AMS concept for mechanized forces best, but the turntable mount is definitely more appealing in these very cost constrained times.
Old Army Guy:
Check out www.army-technology.com for some basic info on the M777 under the "product index" link. I disagree with your incorporation of a 40mm AGL per platoon. The weigt of the systems is simply too high even in their current lightest form (ie. General Dynamic Mk. 47 Striker). It is not just the system weight, because that could probably be managed--just barely. The ammunition, more specifically a useful load simply could not be carried by an infantry platoon. I concede it may be possible at the company level, but unless the weight problem is solved it is a no go. However, there is potential in your proposal if the XM307 25mm Objective Combat Support Weapon (OCSW) comes to fruition. Check out www.generaldynamics.com under its land systems division lethality systems grouping. However, an AGL can not provide the very specific small scale indirect fire support that an infantry rifle company receives from a 60mm lightweight mortar.
Personnally, in my experience the 60mm mortar‘s potential is wasted when grouped individually in the handheld role at the platoon level 99 times out of 100 in most situations. If used at the company level in a small section of two tubes in the tripod role (plus a third carried by the CQ truck as a spare or for specific missions), the 60mm would be far more effective. Furthermore, the M203A1 has largely replaced the 60mm mortars role for platoon needs and if the 60mm mortar is really needed, one can be attached.
