A Bradley mortar system?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

stbretnco 12/24/2006 1:34:02 AM

Just one comment on the direct fire/indirect fire mortar systems being proposed......

The history of multi-purpose weapons systems is littered with examples of systems that did many things half assed. and nothing well.

Keep mortars mortars, keep direct fire weapons as they are, and remember the KISS principle.

Quote Reply

Sabre 12/26/2006 3:12:38 PM

I think the technology exists to make a turret-mounted mortar that does indirect fire well, and does direct-fire at least "half-assed", which is one butt cheek more capability than the US currently has. I see no reason for us to throw up our hands and call it "too difficult" - we aren't trying to hit jet aircraft with a 40mm Bofors on an M247, after all. Of course, the rest of the world seems quite capable of developing dual-capable mortars... they must not have our bureaucracy, politics, and program management technology to "help" with their weapons development.

Seriously, raise your hand if you think that this technology is just beyond our capability to develop.

Who doesn't think that the 40mm Mk19, Mk47, and other automatic grenade launchers, aren't a great idea for some combat situations? I'm sure there were plenty of people who found fault with that idea, when it was first introduced.

There will come a day when we need something bigger than a 40mm grenade - we won't always be facing enemies that we can just throw SF A-teams at, and let the Air Force do all of the heavy lifting. The day will also come when there aren't any tanks to back up the US grunt at the pointy end of the spear.

Quote Reply

Herald1234 Mortars as a direct support weapon. 12/26/2006 3:28:29 PM

Seriously, raise your hand if you think that this technology is just beyond our capability to develop.

73 Easting. How did McMasters handle the Iraqi dismounts when the Iraqis counterattacked?

Herald

Quote Reply

doggtag 12/26/2006 4:16:27 PM

This has been my argument for some time now. There are some people who think a Bradley's 25mm & TOW missiles are good fer what ails ya', as well as the occasional 120mm from an Abrams (which is really all fine for me, as I'm a TOW/turret mech on the BFVs).But as of late, it seems we've gone from being a proactive military that adequately could plan for its perceived threat (Soviet/WP scenario) to a reactive military that has had to shift tactics on the fly to cope with the latest unconvential assymetrical tactics we're fighting against in this WOT. We saw that in the the amount of time (and the fact it had to be recognized as a serious enough threat in the first place) it took to get body armor and vehicle up-armor kits into the field in the last few years.My question is (I won't even argue, "Hey, where are all our counter-battery Firefinder radars to track all those insurgent mortar strikes against us?"): how long must we endure an obvious gap in infantry back up? Wait until we have enough Stryker MGS's & even the various FCS platforms, when some of us can clearly see, here and now, a threat envelope exists now that gun mortars can ideally fill? We've very few 105mm howitzers in the field now, relying mostly on the gold-plated USAF- (justifying the cost of their toys vs the Army's?)- and must rely predominantly on 155mm, GMLRS, and those few M1064/M113 mortar carriers- all of which suck at providing rapid close range precision (and take precious seconds to call in, munition time of flight, and error correction, by which time critical minutes may have passed).

I see no reason for us to throw up our hands and call it "too difficult" - we aren't trying to hit jet aircraft with a 40mm Bofors on an M247, after all.

Unfortunately, some people do want to give up on it- bureaucrats  and politicians, safe in their offices and congressional districts, aren't the ones fighting and dying because of weapons procurements (or lack there of).
And the really funny thing is, in the US, as far back as the 1980s, we were actually testing guided projectile prototypes in 40mm caliber for the now-defunct Sgt York system (Ford Aerospace and Vought both had systems showing potential), with the idea that a subcaliber round fired from MBT main guns would work against adversary helicopter gunships. And yet today our current engineers seem to be having difficulties getting PGMs to work right in 5" and 6" artillery?

Of course, the rest of the world seems quite capable of developing dual-capable mortars... they must not have our bureaucracy, politics, and program management technology to "help" with their weapons development.

Must be that Not Invented Here thing: too proud to borrow someone else's design and call it our own solution? Yet then again: Canberra bomber (B-57), LAV-25 & Stryker, M777, M136/AT4, USMC SMAW, etc...
Definitely has a lot to do with politics: my guess is, considering all the more "campaign money" foreign politicians rake in as compared to ours, I'd guess they aren't as pig-headed and greedy, and recognize a system for its potential rather than how much money it will earn them (and their constituents, if the jobs are in their districts).

Seriously, raise your hand if you think that this technology is just beyond our capability to develop.

Nope. See above.

Who

Quote Reply

YelliChink 12/27/2006 1:47:39 AM

The gap does not exist. There is no gun-mortar system that can match the range of modern day ATGM in LOS engagement. Unless direct hit, gun-mortar system is not likely to survive a fight when enemy armored vehicle is at present. Even a Sherman tank can defeat gun-mortar carrier in no time. There are also other countries tried gun-mortar other than Russian 2B9 system, which they are now only used by airborne exclusively for some reason. Czech tried 152mm gun-mortar decades before and I wonder why they don't even use that at all. Because mortar rounds usually have maximum muzzle velocity less than 300m/s, it takes more than 3 seconds for them to reach 1000m. There are other factors make it suck, for example, side wind can seriously deviate the trajectory. Although it is not impossible to build a perfect gun-mortar, like Russian 2S31, which is nearly perfect, it just doesn't justify the cost to do so. Actually, bring back M40A1 could be cheaper and as effective as gun-mortar, and it's HMVEE compatible. Just don't out-do it to the degree of M50, that shall be fine. Hey, you even get an extra .50Cal. gun on top of M40A1!

Yet, when there is no armor and heavy artillery support, gun-mortar might be a good things than nothing. Why not just buy it from new NATO allies?

About those elephant guns. They are actually around for a while. German made those T-gewehr almost as soon as British fielded tanks. The problem is that nobody can make an elephant gun that is light enough to be carried by one man while don't lodge shooter's shoulder out of place before Barret did it.

About 40mm Grenade Machineguns (GMG). I have never heard anything wrong with GMGs and they are around since Vietnam and almost deployed as soon as possible.

M247 is an expensive POS that should never be granted to build the prototype. Just tell me how many Apache did Iraqi ZSU-23-4 brought down like ever! If people are mounting those radar giuded SPAAAs with missiles, why not just use missiles instead? It saves hell lot of engineering investment of a stable gun platform.

I think it would be more proper to discuss AMOS v.s. M1064. AMOS does have an advantage over M1064 because there is a potential for AMOS to receive target coordinate from an anti-mortar radar and retaliate almost immediately. However, M1064 usually comes with armored or mechanized infantry battalion, whicn means there are also a swarm of tanks and IFVs around. It might not be a bad idea to build a breech loading 160mm mortar in closed turrent and use Bradley as carrier.

Quote Reply

doggtag 12/27/2006 10:57:16 AM

Who said anything about using it to high noon MBTs?

I'm talking close range, quickly available fire support.

Besides, do you have any idea the cost of using 1 TOW vs a 120mm mortar round or two?

As for not being able to hold its own vs enemy AFVs: the last few decades in armored warfare have demonstrated, repeatedly, that the side with the best training and intel (C4ISR or whatever) takes the advantage. Numerically, Iraq had us one-for-one outgunned going into Desert Storm.

But our superior tactics, achieved only through superior training and systems integration (combined arms) gave us the victory.

Would a gun-mortar system, in properly trained hands with superior battlefield intel, be any less survivable?

If you believe so, you'd better tell the US Army to stop wasting its money on the FCS NLOS-M.

And for that matter,

there was no need for SBCT/IBCT either, until enough people in the government with power, money, and influence pushed for it hard enough.

Even a Sherman tank can defeat gun-mortar carrier in no time.

And the same Sherman, even with the original short 75mm gun, would punch holes through any known AFV other than an MBT.

Bradley, Warrior, BMP, even Rooikat, no match for 75mm AP rounds, even if fired at the relatively low velocity (as compared to later WW2 tank guns) the Sherman's 75 gave.

But you don't see anyone suggesting we create a new-generation Sherman with the primary function of hunting all those other AFVs, do we?

Because mortar rounds usually have maximum muzzle velocity less than 300m/s, it takes more than 3 seconds for them to reach 1000m. There are other factors make it suck, for example, side wind can seriously deviate the trajectory.

Ever watched a Mk19 fire? They don't have the greatest velocity, neither, and must effectivly lob their projectiles to get to their maximum range also (just not at the elevations necessary for a mortar). Strong crosswinds will challenge any weapon's flight trajectory, just not as much the higher the velocity and shorter the range.

And for the matter, your argument almost suggests there's little reason to even use mortars anymore, if at all, when a howitzer would work better (gets both high angle plunging fire like a mortar at high elevations, and longer range with bigger charges at lower elevations typical mortars can't do).

And in all actuality, that Russian 2S31 Vena is more of a self-propelled howitzer in all but name.

As far as the M40 series recoilless rifles: they've already been surpassed. ATGMs are better against armor (larger warhead diameters possible, often being fired from much lighter launchers (unless integrated into a vehicle turret).

And their backblast danger areas are too dangerous to nearby friendly units.

Ever seen a TOW fire? Its backblast is no where near as intense as a 106mm rec rifle.

It might not be a bad idea to build a breech loading 160mm mortar in closed turret and use Bradley as carrier.

Up until this point, you made your argument sound like you didn't support the gun mortar notion.

Are you talking a modern day assault system like the WW2 German Brummbar?

(albeit in a rotating turret instead of a built up, limited traverse superstructure).

Since we're not trying to build a new demoltion vehicle for the engineers (who, some of which now, seem destined to be getting a Stryker variant if they're part of an SBCT) to replace/reinvent the old M728 CEV (M60 tank w/ 165mm demo gun), but more of a close-range fire support system (the Stryker MGS has too small an ammo capacity- only 19 rounds),

why do we need something as big as 160mm, when 120mm has already been decided as suitable enough (both in mortar form and tank gun form)?

What's needed is a modern day M8 equivalent (that Stuart hull with the 75mm howitzer), but with a weapon capable of both direct and indirect fire and with a reasonable-sized shell. Say to about 15km, like the current mortars can reach. That way,

Quote Reply

YelliChink 12/27/2006 1:35:21 PM

I love good intellectual debate.

Let's start from 160mm mortar. Those big guys are another Russian invention that pack a big punch (38lb) of high explosives. British Centurion ARVE 165mm packed similar punch. They are extremely good at blowing anything man made into bits, and Israelis captured and adopted them for almost three decades before they worn out. They even mount them onto Sherman chasis and drive them all around. Why 160mm? Because they are breech loading mortars that have enough space inside to put things other than ordinary mortar shells. Ordinary 120mm projectile weighs about 20lb. 160mm mortar is a clear advantage that is proven in combat.

M1064 can fire as fast, or sometimes faster, than AMOS. The advantage of AMOS is automatic firing procedure, but I somehow don't really trust autoloading system. Although I'm against gun-mortar system, it doesn't mean that I reject turrent-mount mortar as a concept. The real difficulty is to make such a system as versatile and flexible as existing systems like M1064 and M106.

Mk.19 fires 300 to 400 rounds per minute, and their comparison is 60mm mortar. A good 60mm mortar crew can fire at the rate about 60-80 rounds per minute. When strong side wind is present, Mk.19 gunner can walk the score dead on faster than any other mortars. Also, Mk.19 fires spin stablized shells that are less prone to be deviated by wind. Mortar shells, however, are usually fin stablized, unless you are firing M30 4.2" shells, and prone to deviate more on winds.

I don't know how cheaper or not those 106mm recoilless shells to 120mm mortar shells, but if we are talking about direct fire support in urban area, than M40A1 is still a potent weapon system if cheap is a concern. M40A1s are still cheaper than dirt compare to every missile system. Of course that backblast is a problem, but it should be less a problem when soldiers who use them are well trained. The better solution to M40A1 is exactly a Brummbar-like system which can deliver heavy punch in close range while still has armor protection to some degree. However, none of M40A1, Brummbar, M728 CEV, FV4003 or any 120mm mortar systems can fire up to 15km. Not even 105mm howitzer.

Different weapons are equiped to different levels in the army hierarchy. Engineer vehicles are usually in brigade level, and that means a lot of wait for every grunts in the fight. M40A1, 120mm mortars are in battalion level, which means less wait but still some wait to be expected unless a fire mission is planned for the operation. The best way is still to get tank back-up anyway grunts go. I really see no reason not to do so when it is possible.

About those 105mm SPHs, I've seen some obsolete M108s back in Army Logistic School in Taiwan. Even us who are still using a lot of aging former US army weapons have phased them out. I don't know why, but I believe it is not without a reason. Chinese also has Type 89 122mm SPH fits this category. However, these stuff are not as accurate as one might think and are ususally used as areal weapons rather than point strike weapons. Unfortunately, nothing beats the good old tank in direct-fire support missions, maybe some assultguns.

Actually, I don't really think the whole FCS thing is the way to go, and the Stryker thing is not entirely right for the army. The army is supposed to OCCUPY LAND by ratting out enemy presence, not being presence to anywhere in the world within 96 hours. That's USMC's job. Those heavy hitters were made to help infantrymen ratting out entrenched, fortified and deeply digged in enemies. The problem is that the US is not fighting an enemy who entrenched, fortified and deeply digged in themselves like Germans and Japanese, and there are already a plethora of existing weapons that can get the job done. Why invent wheels when you have it already? Why not just mount 75mm gun carrier M8's turrent on a Bradley?

Quote Reply

Sabre 12/27/2006 4:18:54 PM

The US Army, at least, decided on 120mm mortars to support mechanized / mobile units basically because it has enough range (7.2km, where as 80ish mm mortars did not).

So, at the battalion level (and in some organizations, notably cavalry, at the troop/company level) we have 120mm mortars.

My point is this: why not make them turret mounted, and capable of direct fire? It does not have to be a perfect, or even great, capability, it doesn't have to ever be used in combat - but if we are going to have 120mm mortars anyway, why not?

What do we lose? How I am worse off for having a mortar that I can fire direct? (Please do not say it will "tempt" troops to use it inappropriately - that would be a severe display of poor leadership, discipline, and training ability - the mortarmen that I've known have a good idea of the capabilities and limitations, and wouldn't take a mortar into a tank fight. Besides, usually the mortars are deployed at the discretion of the battalion commander - if you have incompetent battalion commanders, well, you have bigger problems.)

The additional expense can be minimal, and who knows, perhaps one day, there will be a need for it in combat. There might not be any tanks around to call on (THAT at least, is a scenario that isn't terribly far-fetched). Besides, if we are hitting bunkers with $200,000 javelins, nevermind precision guided munitions (which only seem cheap until you add in the cost of aircraft maintenance, pilot training, etc) we must not be worried about cost...

Quote Reply

YelliChink 12/27/2006 5:45:08 PM

Good point. However, you'll lost a capability: when the carriage is disabled and become unreparable, you can't just take out the mortar and walk away with it, dig another mortar foxhole and set it up for the final stand. That may sound sily, but it is the way mortar crew are taught to fight; unless the vehicle is carrying another M120/M121 mortar. Hmmm, problem solved. My point is to keep mortars being mortars and nothing but mortars. For direct-fire support, find other things better suited for that purpose. If you really want mortar carriers with direct-fire capability, then put a 40mm GMG on it. A dual .50 Cal/40mm GMG mount would be better.

AMOS, however, though fancy and brilliant idea, does have its problem. My suggestion is to get a turrent-mount, breech-loading, enclosed heavy mortar carrier but still have a soldier serves as loader in the crew.

Quote Reply

FSV 12/28/2006 1:02:14 AM

YelliChink: Some of your comments bother me to no end.

"A good 60mm mortar crew can fire at the rate about 60-80 rounds per minute." 21 years in the Marine Corps, & I never saw or heard of a mortar crew (even in Sea Stories) that ever came close to that rate of fire. If they’re not worried about accuracy (checking/adjusting tube lay between rounds), a good 60mm mortar crew can fire between 25 & 30 rds per minute.

You seem to think that "fin stabilized" equates to inaccurate. You are aware that, except in a few cases, High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT or shaped charge) projectiles are all "fin stabilized", even those fired from ‘rifled’ cannons! This is because when they are spin stabilized at high rates, their penetration capabilities are dramatically reduced, up to 50%. In fact, all the projectiles for the 120mm cannon on the M1 Abrams are fin stabilized.

As far as ‘wind effects’, Rifle Spun Stabilized rounds deflect "down wind" & Fin Stabilized rounds deflect "up wind". With proper Ballistic Testing, firing charts/tables can be generated, that accurately predict the effects of wind, at various ranges, on the projectile regardless of the stabilization method.

The biggest contributor to inaccuracy of mortar projectiles is "Windage". That gap between the sides of the projectile body and the Bore of the mortar tube. Windage is necessary for muzzle loaded mortars, it allows the projectile to slide/fall down the tube, by letting the trapped air to escape. When the projectile travels up the bore, it literally bounces from side-to-side in an unpredictable manner. This has 2 adverse effects on accuracy; 1. The long axis of the projectile is not aligned with the axis of the bore at departure. 2. There is a wide variation of muzzle velocities, between successive rounds. Modern mortar rounds have greatly reduced this problem, but it’s still a problem. A breach loaded mortar does not need to have the windage, so firing the same ammo it will be more accurate than a muzzle loaded mortar.

As far as the low muzzle velocities of mortar rounds, when firing in the direct-fire mode, I’ve yet to see a grunt that can out run a 300 m/s projectile. For use against light armored vehicles the French 81mm gum-mortar had a 1,000 m/s APFSDS-T round.

R/S Jake

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT