As a 105 guy from the "See red, read Red" days, and some time with 81's, I will always go with the Howitzer. Howitzers have greater range and better accuracy. If I want to reach out and touch someone before they touch me. Arty is king. If my forward element starts coming under fire and I need a immediate smoke screen, Mortar wins. Grunts need both. Mortars do not provide the shell mixes so are less flexible. A howitzer , depending on which model, will stay in action longer in soft soil. Baseplate won't sink past the axles. No need for shoring the baseplate on hard surfaces to keep it from cracking. 105 has better suit of rounds. In addition to the ones mentioned by Palidan. There are Propaganda rounds (empty Base ejecting that can be stuffed with pamplets) HESH, HEP,colored smoke,CS, rocket assisted HE. Someone mentioned that a 105 arty round will not defeat the front armor of a modern tank. I submit, If the arty battery is direct firing against MBT then things have gone to heck in a handbasket. And 105 HESH and HEP will at least give them a headache as the FDC guys run away. I hope my battery defence are at least lobbing AT-4s in their flanks.

Howitzer and mortar are 2 different animals. It's depend on what you want to have. Howitzers round are for long range but the shells are flying at slanted angle. Mortars are for shorter range, but you get a plunging trajectory which is very deadly. So it's depend on whether you want plunging trajectory or range. It's nice if you can have both.

In my experience, mortar is far more accurate than 105mm howitzer. Of course, this is a matter of training and shooting system, and forward observers. Regular mortar shells won't be really effective against armored targets but against unarmored it is. The longest range in 120mm mortar is 7,3km and 105mm arty has a bit longer, something like 10km. These areas from 8km and further can be covered with 122mm or bigger artillery. Artillery needs a bigger area for firing position. Mortars can fire almost everywhere, for example road or small open place in forest.

Any high angle firing ballistic weapon are inherently less accurate than a low angle firing weapons because of system errors related to range and deflection probable error. In addtion met (weather) effects because of large times of flight are amplified in high angle firing weapons. Mortars typically fire high angle trajectories. While artillery can fire high angle, low angle is preferred when accuracy is needed.

Every soldier wants all the options,but probably the best cost effective option is to have a combination of 120mm mortars and 155mm lightweight towed howitzers. At brigade level a group of 6 or 8 120mm mortar per infantry/armour battalion/battalion/battle group is sufficient. A single battery of 6 or 8 155mm howitzers would be perfect for longer ranged engagements or those needing the 155mm punch. I am talking brigade or brigade plus level, becuase few Western armies outside of the US can really field actual combat divisions. Even the Brits and French can not field US style divisions.

The maximum range of the L-118 105mm light gun, used by Australia, is 17.2km. That is with the ammunition system for which the guns were designed, though we used the L119 barrel, chambered for the old US 105mm ammo system, up until the mid-nineties. This was only because we had so much 105 ammo left over from Vietnam, that it was cheaper to use it for training than to buy new ammo. I do not know whether any base-bleed or rocket assisted rounds have been designed for the L-118, but would note that 17.2km is a pretty good range for a gun that can be slung under a Blackhawk or towed by a 4WD, with some ammo ready to fire. In any case, the range is at least 4 km more than most 120mm mortar systems, even when they use RAP's. As for accuracy, I concur with other comments on this thread, that low-trajectory artillery is considered far more accurate than mortars. In addition to being met affected, mjortars have traditionally not had the benefit of a regiment level survey element that the artillery have, unless they can get support from a friendly artillery element. Some of this may have changed with the introduction of GPS though, I'm not sure as I've been out of the service for a number of years now. Also, tripod-mounted mortars are notoriously unstable and prone to be knocked off balance by big-footed grunts;-). On deployability, yes, mortars have it all over guns. The lack of a recoil apparatus makes them far lighter, thus they are very valuable for infantry battalions on the march and can be mounted on wheeled and tracked vehicles with ease. I would note however that the deployability of 120mm mortars would be severely affected by the weight of the tube and especially rounds, reducing their utility in situations where they have to be man-packed. This defeats one of the main purposes of having a mortar in the first place. If it came to replacing the light gun(currently planned by 2010), I would like to see a light-weight 155mm system in place, rather than a 120mm mortar - with its inferior range and accuracy. However, deployabilty is vitally important for Australia, as our most likely battlegrounds include the jungle covered mountains of New Guniea and East Timor. If a 155mm gun made our army less airmobile, I would favour simply replacing the 105's with more of the same, or refurbishing the current stock with the new British autonomous sighting system, whatever they need in terms of barrels and the mechanical parts and an upgraded ammo system. Designing a new ammo system, with precision guided rounds and cluster munitions, would probably be a fairly lucrative venture for Australian companies, given the number of these guns still in service around the world.

The Marines have made their choice, the 120mm mortar. The greater versatiliy, like lethality, and approximate range of the Israeli designed mortar/transport system appears to be the best system between the two close support weapons. January 16, 2004: The U.S. Marine Corps has, as is their custom, taken an innovative approach to developing a new lightweight, self-propelled artillery system (the Expeditionary Fire Support System, or EFSS). They have combined an existing commercial vehicle, the Supacat HMT (High Mobility Transport) with an Israeli 120 mm mortar system. The HMT is a seven ton, four wheel cross country vehicle with a capacity for 3.2 tons. It has a 180 horsepower engine and a 4x4 drive optimized for cross country work. The cab is being modified to hold the five man gun crew. The Israeli mortar system weighs 1.6 tons and is mounted on a computer controlled turntable. The mortar can fire regular 120mm shells 8.2 kilometers, or rocket assisted ones 13 kilometers. The breech loading mortar system allows for rapid fire and the turntable system takes data directly from forward observers and quickly positions the 120mm tube to put the shells on the target. The EFSS can put shells on the target within minutes of a request. The system can fire 20 rounds in two minutes and uses a GPS assisted fire control system to provide accuracy comparable to any other artillery system. The EFSS is light enough to be moved by helicopter or Osprey tilt-wing transport. The system can fire several types of cluster bomb shells. One of these, for example, will destroy most armored vehicles, and kill or wound most troops in a 100x100 meter area. Each of the 32 bomblets can penetrate four inches of armor, but will be hitting the thinner top armor on armored vehicles. The marines went after the 120mm mortar, instead of another 155mm howitzer, because the mortar is lighter, faster firing and uses a shell that does damage equivalent to 155mm types.

The EFSS air mobility package for the Marines was designed by Lockeed Martin. The Soltam mortar is Israeli and the HMT Supacat is a British design. The Marines have developed a LAV mortar system for sea-land operations.. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/efss.htm

Is there a fact checker on any of these Strategy page "News" articles. The system that it says was decided on was just test fired at 29 palms. Does the author work for Lockheed Martin The MC hasn't settled on the 120 mortar yet. And the EFSS doesn't replace the 155mm howitzers. In fact it doesn't replace any MC system. It does take the place that the M101A1 filled until 1994, and currently filled by 81s. Lightweight, initial landing/raid fire support. It is intended to be the third leg of the LW155/HIMAR/Dragon Fire triad. there is an excelent version of 120mm LAV mounted Dragon Fire. http://www.rdecom.army.mil/rdemagazine/200310/itf_dragonfire_AMRDEC.html and a quick rundown of the EFSS/Dragon fires program. http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/dragon-fire.htm One of the advantages is higher payload, and a slight increase in usable accurate range. The biggest downfall is slow rate of fire compared to the 81. Look at all the Dragonfire systems considered now. All have a ROF of 10 rd per min for 2 min then 4 rds per min thereafter. Compare that to the M252 81mm mortar at 33 RPM for 2 then 16 RPM. More than makes up for the smaller round size. I see the 120 as something that will have to be forced down the fleets throat. The issues of who it belongs to will be a killer. Mortar=infantry, 105 and above indirect = Artillery. Thats a discussion in itself

Your right this mortar system is just the air mobility deep strike package that is one part of the EFSS Triad for the next generation of Marine artillery. This system appears to fit the bill because it can be carried internally by the CH-53 and has improved accuracy and fire power over conventional mortars.