The future of Light Arty (105 mm) (From: Mortars)

[Bruce Monkhouse]

My thoughts??  We only talk about others doing more with less [positions], when it comes time for us to walk the walk...........I can't see it.


EDIT: I should state "we" implies to any trade/ job/ etc.

 

[GnyHwy]

...and, quite on time, the Journal of Military Operations delivers an article concerned with the future of British artillery.  (Sign up is free)

https://www.tjomo.com/article/8/Down_The_Tubes_A_View_on_the_Future_of_Field_Guns_Using_United_Kingdom_Artillery_as_the_Example/

The author essentially states:

1.  Everything the 105mm can do the 155mm can do better;

2.  The 155mm howitzer like the M777 is the best "middle-ground" weapon - more deployable than a SPH but more effective than a 105mm ULWPH.

3.  Old artillery structures (3 Batteries with Gun Troop, HQ, and Observation elements) may be obsolete.  FOOs may be concentrated in their own regiment and may not consist of exclusively gunners.

Interesting read.

Statement 1 is pretty bold.  I guess he must be excluding rate of fire, reaction to near ground targets, simplicity, air mobility, etc.

Statement 2 also seems too convenient.  Comparing in 2 categories, but to 2 different systems.  One could as easily say that the 777 is less deployable than a 105, and less effective than a SPH (autoloader).

Statement 3 I can get on board with. Having experienced eyes everywhere would be very valuable, but I doubt our current regimental system would allow for too many postings outside the trades.  We do this already to some extent.  FACs can be any cbt arm, and the current OP batteries have Os from other trades.  I would argue that there should be more NCMs though, because Os only use that skill for a few years whereas an NCM can use it for several.

I would venture as far as saying that except for large battle plans no FOO parties are required and the Infantry/Armoured folk should all be fluid in this skill...........no matter what the old guard might say it really isn't that hard.

I guess it depends on your definition of large.  I'll make an assumption that you mean at least BG, but I would argue that Cbt Tms need them too.  I think most SACs would say the same, and if they don't, they probably had a crappy FOO.  Your absolutely right that calling a fire mission is not hard.  The only thing wrong with that statement is, calling in the mission is the smallest and easiest part of being a FOO.  The simple shooting is only about 1/10 of the training.  One could easily say that, shooting is easy, just like kicking doors, crew drills, and digging tank ditches, but if you don't do it all the time, you won't be very good at it.  I've seen our army's elite call in fire missions after being trained.  It's not pretty.  As well as some of the junior Os that I have trained that don't think they need drills, or have a better way of doing something they know nothing about, or "what is this bracketing thing"?  Attitudes like that are why the wrong people get killed.

The aussies are going with a single and large gun battery in each regiment, plus 2-3 OP/FOO batteries. Whats everybody's take on this? Gunners, your thoughts?

I do like the FOO Bty concept, and we are doing it somewhat, although half arsed IMO.  I think if we did one battery properly, it would produce good results.  2-3 per Regt i.e per Bde seems a little overkill, and by what Bruce has said above, I think he would agree.  Some more recent conversation on this is at http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/108115.0.html

You will get many mixed opinions within the Arty about this topic.  Simply put, the FOO guys think it's good and everyone else can't see why its good.

Agreed.  Part of TQ3 (really dating myself) Armour was to call in Fire Missions.  It was also part of Armour Officer Phase Trg.  The use of puff tables (and later their new fangled electronic big screen imagery version) in the Arty School was always part of those courses. 

At the same time, FAC trg was also introduced on Officer Phase Trg, with the acknowledgement that a more formal crse and qualification would be necessary to be a FAC.  There is no need for a FAC to be Arty or Pilot.

Again, calling in fire missions is easy, and we put gunners on this as long they have a comms course.  There suppose to have a PLQ, but that is waived more than not.  FACs aren't just Arty or Pilot.  Every cbt arm can be a FAC, and there is a representation within the school and the FOO btys.  Too bad it's not a good career move for them.

My thoughts??  We only talk about others doing more with less [positions], when it comes time for us to walk the walk...........I can't see it.

EDIT: I should state "we" implies to any trade/ job/ etc.

I agree here.  In order for us to have the multitude of capabilities that higher echelon wants of us, we have had to water them all down.

 

[rampage800]

Quote from: Bruce Monkhouse on Today at 14:54:40

    I would venture as far as saying that except for large battle plans no FOO parties are required and the Infantry/Armoured folk should all be fluid in this skill...........no matter what the old guard might say it really isn't that hard.

Pretty bold statement isn't it Bruce, while I agree that the Arm and Inf should be proficient in the AACFF (and most are) there's a fair stretch between doing it on a range in Wx or Gagetown when the rounds are landing 1.5km + and doing it in operations where most engagements are considerably closer. Obviously its been done before but I'd be willing to bet that if you asked each person who did it would they rather have had a Qualified Observer conduct the mission I'm certain it would be a resounding yes.

For Controllers all being Arty or pilots I'd agree that there is some empire building going on within the Arty but one of the biggest reasons is economy of effort for training. Its a lot easier to train guys, keep currencies, put on exercise if everyone is centrally located and belongs to 1 CoC, then there isn't competing priorities, taskings, personal opinions, exercises, etc.  Lets not also forget that there are other trades with the FAC Qual and every Arty Regiment has 2 spots for an Inf and Arm pers and spots at the School so they do exist.

Anyhow....my 2 cents

 

[FJAG]

I would venture as far as saying that except for large battle plans no FOO parties are required and the Infantry/Armoured folk should all be fluid in this skill...........no matter what the old guard might say it really isn't that hard.

Let me start with the most obvious point which is that leading a company or a platoon is a full time job. You don't want to be spending your time doing the fine points of getting into a tactical position from where you can call and adjust fire, manage the airspace between incoming rounds and aircraft, judge battle damage, negotiate for more resources etc etc while your troops are all sitting around waiting for a decision from you.

Any reasonably intelligent person can be taught to adjust fire on the ranges but - guess what - on operations the job is a full time one which requires expertise, a touch of talent and the ability to juggle several resources simultaneously.

Indirect fire support, including aviation and air is becoming more complex what with integrated lasers, GPS, dedicated data links etc which requires a dedicated and skilled crew to operate and maintain - and be able to fall back to a map with a grease pencil when the system goes down.

Could someone other than an officer do these jobs? Probably. You should note though that in the artillery we used to have great arguments about whether FOOs should be experienced captains (like in Brit based armies) or whether they could they be 2nd lieutenants (like the US and several other countries do) and should FACs be arty or air force and if air force should they be pilots or something like ETACs etc. I don't want to sound pedantic here but for us the question generally came down on the side of having experienced individuals up front that have the ability to analyze the situation and had the authority to 'call for fire' specifying nature of ammo, volume of fire and several other technical matters rather than simply 'requesting fire'. In armies that use low level ranks to request fire its the fire direction centres at the gun regiment/battalion or battery level that make those decisions. Letting the guy at the site of the contact call the shots is a very good thing in my mind. Having more senior gunner officers up front makes this happen.

As to the concept of separating FSCC/FOO personnel from the gun batteries all I can say is that observers have primarily been (but not always) part of the batteries for over a century and I think its pretty much time to change that.

While there is some benefit in keeping BCs and Tp Comds with the battery like administration, command experience, and development of interpersonal relationships between the gun line and the guys up front, the jobs on operations are quite distinct. Effectively the BC and FOO can spend months separated from the gun line except by radio link. In garrison, the forward elements and the gun line train together only a few times per year to the extent that live ammo permits. Others may disagree but in my mind there is no loss of proficiency in separating these elements into two separate batteries. On the contrary I think the BC and FOOs could probably spend more time on their skills and be with their supported arms.

 

[George Wallace]

Let me start with the most obvious point which is that leading a company or a platoon is a full time job. You don't want to be spending your time doing the fine points of getting into a tactical position from where you can call and adjust fire, manage the airspace between incoming rounds and aircraft, judge battle damage, negotiate for more resources etc etc while your troops are all sitting around waiting for a decision from you.

Any reasonably intelligent person can be taught to adjust fire on the ranges but - guess what - on operations the job is a full time one which requires expertise, a touch of talent and the ability to juggle several resources simultaneously.

Indirect fire support, including aviation and air is becoming more complex what with integrated lasers, GPS, dedicated data links etc which requires a dedicated and skilled crew to operate and maintain - and be able to fall back to a map with a grease pencil when the system goes down.

Could someone other than an officer do these jobs? Probably. You should note though that in the artillery we used to have great arguments about whether FOOs should be experienced captains (like in Brit based armies) or whether they could they be 2nd lieutenants (like the US and several other countries do) and should FACs be arty or air force and if air force should they be pilots or something like ETACs etc. I don't want to sound pedantic here but for us the question generally came down on the side of having experienced individuals up front that have the ability to analyze the situation and had the authority to 'call for fire' specifying nature of ammo, volume of fire and several other technical matters rather than simply 'requesting fire'. In armies that use low level ranks to request fire its the fire direction centres at the gun regiment/battalion or battery level that make those decisions. Letting the guy at the site of the contact call the shots is a very good thing in my mind. Having more senior gunner officers up front makes this happen.

As to the concept of separating FSCC/FOO personnel from the gun batteries all I can say is that observers have primarily been (but not always) part of the batteries for over a century and I think its pretty much time to change that.

While there is some benefit in keeping BCs and Tp Comds with the battery like administration, command experience, and development of interpersonal relationships between the gun line and the guys up front, the jobs on operations are quite distinct. Effectively the BC and FOO can spend months separated from the gun line except by radio link. In garrison, the forward elements and the gun line train together only a few times per year to the extent that live ammo permits. Others may disagree but in my mind there is no loss of proficiency in separating these elements into two separate batteries. On the contrary I think the BC and FOOs could probably spend more time on their skills and be with their supported arms.

This is a great big "EXCUSE ME?"

In all my time in Recce, when it came time to call down fire, we did not have the luxury to call an officer forward to our OP to conduct a Fire Mission, nor did we have time to find and wait to call a "Gunner" forward.  Let me just end this here by saying that there are "Professionals" in other places than the officer corps of the RCHA who are more than capable of calling in a Fire Mission. 

At the same time there are numpties sitting in Artillery CPs who seem to have the impression that everyone travels around with a Met Tech.  (Like the idiot who requested the fol of me during a Fire Mission: Wind Speed, Air Temp, etc. at my loc and target loc......friggin get serious.)

 

[FJAG]

For Controllers all being Arty or pilots I'd agree that there is some empire building going on within the Arty but one of the biggest reasons is economy of effort for training. Its a lot easier to train guys, keep currencies, put on exercise if everyone is centrally located and belongs to 1 CoC, then there isn't competing priorities, taskings, personal opinions, exercises, etc.  Lets not also forget that there are other trades with the FAC Qual and every Arty Regiment has 2 spots for an Inf and Arm pers and spots at the School so they do exist.

I don't have a strong opinion on this rather an observation from experience. When I was a FOO, I was also trained as and became a qualified FAC. Doing an attack run requires much concentration and involves you full-time from the moment the aircraft is on station until it clears the battle space. During that interval you have no time to do anything else and the tactical situation may well require you observe and engage other targets, communicate with the supported arm etc.

If I had my way I'd want an ETAC within arms reach to control the air, have my arty tech engage any other gun targets necessary, an MFC run his mortars while I quarterback the whole ball of wax and make sure everything ends up on the enemy. Everybody doing what they do best. Probably not what the PY counters want to hear though.

 

[rampage800]

Actually FJAG most Controllers nowadays are NCO's and can work either with FOO Parties or independently.

 

[ArmyRick]

I think some here are getting the AACFF confused with the extensive and well planned out fire missions that FOO are capable of. When I was in Mortar platoon (I only have the basic not the advanced course), there was many different ways to set up fire missions to get effects on the ground (screen, neutralize, destroy, illuminate, etc, etc).

I don't think we should be naive enough to believe that anybody (REGARDLESS of what they did in the past and what worked on ex) can handle more complex fire mission planning. I can do a basic AACFF but I would not feel comfortable doing it if there was civies close by or friendly troops moving into an assault position. Thats what FOOs are for, let them handle it.

 

[Infanteer]

Having worked with a FOO attached to the company in Afghanistan and, at times, pushed up to my platoon for certain operations I concur with the previous posts.  The AACFF is great in a pinch, but it doesn't replace having a guy plugged into the gunner net who's looking specifically at how effects can be brought onto the enemy while I focused on maneouvre.  The fact that the NCO beside him was a FAC talking to the TACP made it all the better.

 

[FJAG]

This is a great big "EXCUSE ME?"

In all my time in Recce, when it came time to call down fire, we did not have the luxury to call an officer forward to our OP to conduct a Fire Mission, nor did we have time to find and wait to call a "Gunner" forward.  Let me just end this here by saying that there are "Professionals" in other places than the officer corps of the RCHA who are more than capable of calling in a Fire Mission. 

At the same time there are numpties sitting in Artillery CPs who seem to have the impression that everyone travels around with a Met Tech.  (Like the idiot who requested the fol of me during a Fire Mission: Wind Speed, Air Temp, etc. at my loc and target loc......friggin get serious.)

George. You've misread what I said in a number of places.

In the first place I know there are numerous "professionals" out there that can call down fire. I've worked with great NCO arty techs and Infantry MFCs as well as recce crews - in fact in my day I taught quite a few RCR and VIII CH NCOs and officers how to shoot and watched them do very well indeed.

As to calling a FOO forward, that's rarely necessary as a good FOO puts himself where the action is on his own initiative. Admittedly that's sometimes hard on a recce screen which covers more area than a single FOO, even with a split team, can handle.

Your example about the "idiot" in the Arty CP asking you dumb questions proves my point. I can tell you that as a FOO I've never been asked a dumb question and immediately got the rounds I demanded. That's the point of my statement. With a FOO, I call the gun line direct and the front end gets what's needed ASAP. When the "request for fire" comes from others its probably routed through your command net, picked up by the FSCC, gets analysed and interpreted and routed to whatever guns are available. People vet what you ask for and you may not get what you need when you need it.

If you reread my post more slowly you may find I'm actually on your side about the  fact that there are lots of folks out there that can shoot a good mission but there's more to the job then that and that frequently the supported arms guys have a lot more to do then adjust a fire mission.

For rampage800. Re controllers. Mortar Fire Controllers were NCOs in my day too. When I researched Op ANACONDA this year I learned about USAF ETACs and knew they were NCOs.  We trained our Arty Techs for that as well. Are there other air controllers in the Canadian system that are NCOs?

As an aside re ANACONDA there were over twenty ETACs etc deployed in a six kilometre square area when you count up the ones with the special forces and the two 'companies' worth of conventional troops all of whom had to fight with the dysfunctional air tasking system. I've read both the USAF's after action report and several other analyses (Sean Taylor in particular) and if you ever want to see a battle where people screwed up the planning of indirect fire support (no guns, only one mortar with the initial lift, quickly attrited aviation and unbelievably uncoordinated air) this is the one for you.

 

[rampage800]

FJAG

My earlier post may have been ambiguous, when I said Controller I indeed meant FAC (the more commonly (unofficial) used name now is JTAC, Joint Terminal Attack Controller, even though its a US term). The short answer to your question is yes, most are NCO's mainly because they hang around the units a lot longer then the officers do so the CF gets a little more bang for their buck.

Sorry for the slight hijack 

 

[FJAG]

FJAG

My earlier post may have been ambiguous, when I said Controller I indeed meant FAC (the more commonly (unofficial) used name now is JTAC, Joint Terminal Attack Controller, even though its a US term). The short answer to your question is yes, most are NCO's mainly because they hang around the units a lot longer then the officers do so the CF gets a little more bang for their buck.

Sorry for the slight hijack 

At the risk of being way off topic one more time, I see the term JTAC in US usage as well. Looks identical to an ETAC so probably just a terminology change.

One final question. It looks to me like the Cdn JTACs are combat arms rather than primarily air force as in the US. Are there any Cdn JTACs from the Cdn air force or are they all combat arms?

 

[jeffb]

There are RCAF FACs as I know several first hand.

 

[Petard]

Somewhat back on topic, a 105 is a better system for FAC training since it has faster time of flight than a mortar for a given range, and certainly a lower max ord. The operating costs, in a training enviornment, are cheaper as well compared to 155

In the remote chance it were used for SEAD during actual Ops, it has the advantage of range over a mortar, although not the 155 for range or effects

 

[MikeL]

At the risk of being way off topic one more time, I see the term JTAC in US usage as well. Looks identical to an ETAC so probably just a terminology change.

Just from my own readings,  it seems like ETAC is an out of date term.  But a ETAC/JTAC is the same thing,  just ETAC specifically refered to enlisted pers(NCM) doing the JTAC job.

One final question. It looks to me like the Cdn JTACs are combat arms rather than primarily air force as in the US. Are there any Cdn JTACs from the Cdn air force or are they all combat arms?

Like jeffb said,  there are RCAF pers trained as FACs.  Pilots, ANAVs and AECs can attend the course if they will be posted into a position that requires it.  I know there are postings for them in the Bde TACP and at the school.  I am unsure if they are actually employed as a FAC/JTAC attached to a Cbt Team,  as I've only heard about/seen Combat Arms pers in that job.

 

[ArmyRick]

Just going back to 105mm gun vs 120mm mortar, yes artillery dudes I know you don't like comparing, but I wanted to re-hash something from earlier. Someone was pointing out that a 105 is better than a 120 in all aspects (can't remember who), how ever, a couple of points
1. From what I understand 120mm HE mortar has a greater lethal radius than a 105mm HE (its like 60-65m, I will dig up my source for that, give me a bit)
2. For illumination, can anybody challenge a mortar? Its high angle of fire allows better illum missions in my opinion

I realize 105 can do direct shoot (Gunners, can a 155 do that?) and has longer range (if range was the key issue than 155 beats both systems hands down).

Gunners, if you were forced to choose between an 81mm or 120mm mortar and lets say 105 was not even an option, which would you go for?

 

[Petard]

I think this thread meanders enough dontcha think?

Let's not forget that for any given range a 105mm gun system has a smaller PER than a 120mm mortar
But  there are 105 ammunition types that have greater range than even glide type 120mm mortar ammunition, can deliver both lethal and non lethal effects to that range, and have the potential to be fitted with PGK

One exmaple: the Rheinmetal-Denel M11130 and M1131 series of 105mm howitzer ammunition. This family of 105mm ammunition can achieve ~30km in avg MET conditions, and deliver non lethal effects including multi spectral smk, Smk HC, Illum and IR Illum, as well as lethal effects. They claim the lethal effects approximate the M107 155 mm rd (I've attended their arena tests of this, and for their VLAP ammunition, they're not blowing smoke, so to speak). Therefore 105mm light arty certainly can exceed std 120mm ammunition not only in range, but in effects and accuracy as well. That a mortar fires high angle is a non issue; any modern 105 system can fire high angle too

Other ammuntion manufacturers are pursuing these same goals

Our current 155 non lethal ammunition cannot achieve those ranges by the way

post edit: the M777 can, and has in Ops, fired direct

 

[jeffb]

I realize 105 can do direct shoot (Gunners, can a 155 do that?) and has longer range (if range was the key issue than 155 beats both systems hands down).

Gunners, if you were forced to choose between an 81mm or 120mm mortar and lets say 105 was not even an option, which would you go for?

The 81mm hands down. The 120mm mortar in my view loses out on one of the key advantage of the mortar over gun howitzers, namely, their portability. The 81mm mortar can be relatively easily jumped with, transported in a small vehicle like a LUVW or man packed. Good luck doing a dismounted operation with a 120mm mortar. There is a place I think for 120 mm mortars but if it is an either/or type situation, 81 makes more sense to me.

And yes, any gun/howitzer can be fired in a direct role. A gun by definition is able to engage targets directly or at least using relatively flat trajectories. In addition, the 105mm guns that we have in service (LG1, C3) can fire high angle. The C3 does require a pit to be dug but that's all part of the drill. We usually don't fire high angle as the probable error in range goes up. (It's less accurate).

 

[GnyHwy]

Just going back to 105mm gun vs 120mm mortar, yes artillery dudes I know you don't like comparing, but I wanted to re-hash something from earlier. Someone was pointing out that a 105 is better than a 120 in all aspects (can't remember who), how ever, a couple of points

I don't mind comparing at all, and I can offer plenty of good things about the 120.  I can also offer many good things about the 105.  At the time it seemed the argument was getting lopsided toward the 120.  I believe you are remembering me as saying that the 105 was better in all categories.  What I said was a howitzer will beat or compete in all categories that you mentioned, except weight.

The Mortar offers
-High angle of fire
-120mm HE is more lethal than 105mm HE
-Quick to put into action
-Relatively light compared to 105
-Does better illum than 105

A howitzer will beat or compete in all categories above except weight.  Your last statement I put in yellow would be one of my main arguments for a howitzer.

1. From what I understand 120mm HE mortar has a greater lethal radius than a 105mm HE (its like 60-65m, I will dig up my source for that, give me a bit)

With conventional ammo yes, mostly because of their steep angle of fall provides a more circular fragmentation pattern.  Some potential problems with that could be, do you want the fragments to comes backwards?  Also, as Petard has mentioned the PER/CEP is larger for a mortar.  I will also add that mortars are much more susceptible to wind.

2. For illumination, can anybody challenge a mortar? Its high angle of fire allows better illum missions in my opinion

Current 120 shells are better than 105 for candle power and length of effective illumination (hang time), but once again the 105 will offer more range.

I realize 105 can do direct shoot (Gunners, can a 155 do that?) and has longer range (if range was the key issue than 155 beats both systems hands down).

Yes a 777 can fire direct, but not nearly as effective as a 105.  A 105 can be manhandled quite easily, therefore making it easier to react to targets not directly in front of you.  Also, they can be manhandled in to positions that you could not bring a 777.  Much like daftandbarmy's example.

This is more like my idea of what 'light artillery' should be doing:

Their Dragon in Helmand

One-hundred and fifty miles to the north, at the most remote of the various British strongpoints scattered around Helmand province, one weapon strikes fear into the enemy.

It's not an Apache helicopter. It's not a Viking assault vehicle. It's not a Jackal armoured vehicle, It's not a Sea King helicopter. Nor is it a Lynx helicopter. It's a Dragon.

It's the Taliban's nickname for the Royal Marines 105mm field gun.

The Royal Marines gunners, 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, hauled one of their howitzers to a hilltop outside Musa Qaleh in Northern Helmand.

The peak of Roshan Tower, a couple kilometres north of the regional centre, which dominates the town and surrounding terrain.

It took four days to get a gun from 8 Commando Battery to the top of the tower and prepare the peak as a gun platform, as gunners moved not merely the two ton gun, but also its ammunition boxes, each weighing one-hundred pounds.

http://www.modern-day-commando.com/29-Commando-RA.html

Gunners, if you were forced to choose between an 81mm or 120mm mortar and lets say 105 was not even an option, which would you go for?

It would depend on the size of the manoeuvre force.  If it was cbt tm size expeditionary, or air mobile, I would want 81s, or even 60s (oops, I didn't mean to say 60s).  If it was BG, I want 120s.  If I could only have one to try and do everything, then it would have to be the 120, mostly because of range.

Although I am mostly likely subconsciously partial to a howitzer, I really am trying to be impartial.  If the conversation was lopsided toward the 105, I probably would defend the 120, just to keep the debate even.  I can make arguments for both.  I don't take any of this personal, and rather enjoy the debate.

 

[Old Sweat]

E Battery on TF 3-06 used a 120mm mortar that was loaned to them by the US SF. It would be interesting to find out what they thought of it. The CO of 2 RCHA and two of the BCs ( D Battery and the OP Battery) were on that TF, so perhaps JeffB or someone else from the regiment could ask them.

Canadian gunners also were equipped with the 4.2in Mortar in the early fifties and then again from about 1964 to 1969. In the fifties the Canadian based field regiments had a light battery of, I think, three troops each of four tubes. One of the batteries - Z - was a para battery. These batteries were re-equipped with towed 155 howitzers circa 1956 or 1957. When 2 CIBG in Petawawa became a light brigade in 1964 4 RCHA traded its C1s for 4.2in Mortars and kept them until they were replaced by L5s in early 1969.

Here is a link to a site:

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/smallarms/4pt2.htm

I had occasion to fire the 4.2in on officer training (unofficially as one of our AIGs was an airborne gunner and he found us some ammunition) and then on the IG Course, It was not very sophisticated, but was fairly accurate and produced a big bang at the sharp end. I would not want to manpack it or its ammunition. On reflection if given the choice of mortars to take to a combat zone, I would opt for the 81mm for ease of operation, ammunition portability and a fairly effective round.