How about a mix of Soviet 160mm towed mortars for truly heavy saturation firepower and MLRS for long ranger precisions strikes?

I know the 160mm Mortar isn't NATO standard but it gives the same or better blast performance as a 155mm Howitzer and is more mobile. Maybe mount them in a 2 APC unit - 1 the gun track and the other the ammo hauler.

Doesn't have the range of a howitzer but that' the tradeoff for the extra mobility.

What kind of range are we talking about for this 160mm mortar? 

 

From an accuracy/precision point of view I will take a howitzer over a mortar any day of the week as well.

The L19 ordnance of the L118 Lt Gun is a couple of inches shorter that the L13 ordnance of the L109 Abbot (to use the correct and rarely used designation) hence FT max range is a couple of hundred metres less.

 

L118 was never designed to fire 'surplus' Abbot ammo, is was specifically designed to fire the same ammo. L119 was produced to fire the leftover 105mm 'NATO' produced for the L5 ordnance used with the L10 Pack How which L118 replaced.  Max range of L118 is actually about 22km with BB shells, 17.2 is the unassisted range with std ammo.

 

The guns vs mortars argument is never ending they have different characteristics and hence different strengths and weaknesses.  Basically guns are more flexible, hence capable of a wider range of tasks.  However, if all you want is short range from a light 'launcher' then mortars may be the answer.

 

'Blast' effects are really only a consideration with precision munitions, and these are really only useful against precise and identifiable point targets.  The apers effect of arty is primarily a function of shell splinters, and these are also effective against unarmoured targets.

The 'NATO' or M1 105mm family is 105 mm How in UK parlance.  UK also gave the shells for that round an L number.

 

105 mm Fd is the UK term for the ammo fired by Abbot & L118.   When Abbot was first introduced into service they had to build war stocks from scratch.  These became know as the 105 mm Fd Mk 2.  While this stock building was going on they also had to train.  They therefore introduced 105 mm Fd Mk 1.  This used the shell from 105 mm How (L33 HE)and a reduced cartridges (L32 normal  and L34 super) of 105 mm Fd type (105 mm Fd uses an electrically fired primer in the cart whereas 105 mm How is pecussion (never mind different chamber sizes)). 

 

The Mk 2 ammo used L31 HE and L34 and 35 carts.  L33 is shorter and a bit lighter than L31 (it also has less HE filling so is less lethal).  More recently (earlier this year), a new HE shell was accepted for service (L50), this is about the same weight as L31 but about 38 cm longer (IIRC) and uses an insensitive HE filling, which is less mass hence allows a longer shell to carry more HE. 

 

105 mm Fd Mk 1 only gave 15,000 m FT max rg instead of 17,400 for Mk 2 from Abbot.

Ooops, 38 mm not 38 cm!

 

Incidentally the point to note is that the newer shell, L31 has the lower L number.  This probably catches a few people out.