Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: mechanized infantry mortar platoon
stinger    3/7/2008 12:21:39 AM
Why are there no mortars at the company level in a mech company? What do you think of adding a mortar section to a mech company, say maybe 2 120mm, or they could carry at least one 60mm per track. I sure don't think 4 tubes per battalion is enough. what do you think?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
WarNerd       3/9/2008 2:18:26 PM

how about installing a couple of these on the Bradley chassis they fit. and adding a pair per company.

How about a link for the spec's?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Ah, the close range fire support debate again...   3/9/2008 6:11:17 PM
...seems that any given year, this topic raises its head at least a couple times.
 
Stinger's suggestion looks a lot like the "old" Royal Ordnance 120mm system,
most commonly known to equip Saudi military 8x8 LAVs.
 
 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/lav-ms-mortar3.jpg" width=300 align=left border=0>
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(pic courtesy of GlobalSecurity.Org)
 
 
 
 
 
As far as the US Army is concerned,
there's not much point in procuring such a capability for the Bradley,
not with the NLOS-Mortar (designation XM1204) coming on line (hopefully), supposedly the first pre-production vehicles may see the light of day before this year's out (by November's end, I think I recall reading recently) along with their NLOS-Cannon brethren, designated XM1203: the FCS family can be seen  here  ).
 
As for deciding that 120mm firepower is the caliber of preference (thw way these related topics always go),
the reasoning has always been on principally of the PGM capability that 120mm systems are offering, allowing their larger-capacity shells to be more precise with the payloads.
Seen as a necessity especially as collateral damage is an ever-increasing concern.
 
 
For some other options if we really want the 120mm systems,
Finland is no sloacker in offering two very promising systems:
The NEMO  system features a low overall turret weight of 1500kg, allowing for a compact (automated) installation on numerous platforms.
Or, if people prefer serious firepower in the form of twin barrels and the ability to MRSI  (putting multiple rounds on the same target at almost the same time from the same gun) up to 10 rounds on a target up to 6 miles away, then AMOS  is the way to go.
(There are scores of AMOS videos  across YouTube and others, including a naval proof-of-concept demonstrator.)
 
Some people argue that there's little point in using the direct fire capabilities that breech-loading, low-angle-capability mortars such as AMOS, NEMO, and the Royal Ordnance AMS 120 offer, even suggesting that it might "encourage" crews thus equipped to foolishly think they're tanks and intentionally go after point targets,
even though the direct fire option could mean a few seconds' less engagement time when otherwise firing the mortar at closer targets (<1000m?).
And there are those proponents that suggest the Stryker MGS, once fielded to preferred operational strength (teething troubles aside), will provide all the direct fire support needed.
But, that hasn't stopped the US Army from choosing the NLOS-Mortar design that will grant a direct fire capability, even though both the 120mm tank gun armed Mounted Combat System of the FCS family, and the big-gunned NLOS-Cannon, will also have quite formidable direct fire capability.
 
There have been a number of developments in 60mm and 81mm breech-loading, direct fire capable mortars that allow full under armor protection for the crews, as compared to needing open-topped or ground-mounted turntables in most other applications.
There have been several mounting on French armored cars over the years:
 4x4 AML-90 series mounting turrets equipped with numrous MGs, 20mm cannon, and a few different 60mm gun mortar designs,
the 6x6 ERC-90 series was trailled with both the 60mm turrets and an MCB81 version with a much larger, boxier turret featuring an 81mm gun mortar with a range of 8000-8800m, depending where you source it,
and South Afrika's Ratel 60 6x6 AFV also featured a similar 60mm gun mortar turret with coaxial MGs or 20mm cannon.
(Sadly, even the Wiki entries on these vehicles are severely lacking in any info on the gun mortar variants.)
 
 
Quote    Reply

stinger       3/9/2008 6:38:31 PM
the israeli merkava has a 60mm internal mortar installed. that's a pretty good system also a very nice MBT. maybe not a fixed mortar but I'm sure a 60mm could be stored on each Bradley and then deployed when needed. or 1 per platoon.
 
Quote    Reply

stinger       3/9/2008 6:46:34 PM

M326 120-mm Mortar QuickStow System

The M326 120-mm Mortar System was developed by BAE Systems to make it easier for Soldiers to quickly set-up and take down the M120 120-mm Mortar system on the battlefield.

The M326 is a simple and rugged device that can be easily attached to the M1101 Trailer, High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) or a variety of other vehicles that serve as a prime mover for 120-mm mortar systems. It significantly reduces mortar crew workload by using a hydraulic system to hoist the fully assembled M120 Mortar, which weighs more than 300 pounds, into and out of the trailer or vehicle used to haul the weapon.

The assembled mortar base plate, tube and bipod are held together as a unit by a steel strut that connects the mortar to the M326 lift arm. The hydraulic lifting enables rapid weapon set-up and removal. During tests, mount and dismount of a fully assembled M120 Mortar have been achieved in less than 20 seconds.

In September 2007, BAE Systems received a $13.9 million contract from the U.S. Army?s Product Manager ? Mortar Systems (PM-MS) to procure 588 of the M326 systems.

The contract calls for BAE Systems to begin low-rate initial production immediately and deliver the first 52 M326 systems to the Army by September 2008. BAE Systems will deliver an additional 536 systems through full-rate production, which will begin immediately following LRIP completion. The systems will be assembled at BAE Systems? Louisville, Ky., facility.

The contract also includes options for funding the delivery of up to 100 additional systems as well as new equipment training, installation, warehousing and spares. If all options are exercised, the contract could grow to $20.5 million.

 
Quote    Reply

stinger       3/9/2008 6:48:51 PM

M326_dt.jpghttp://www.defensetech.org/archives/images/M326_dt.jpg" width=250 align=right>D

 
Quote    Reply

stinger       3/11/2008 3:48:30 AM
http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/img/moerser_wiesel_2.jpg" width=2128>
 
Quote    Reply

forvalour       4/14/2008 3:55:38 AM
6 amos (120mm) at battalion and 3 81mm per company
 
Quote    Reply

nyetneinnon       4/14/2008 4:57:36 AM
Good discussion topic.  Mortars, mortars, mortars.  I would agree with the author.  While never serving in the military I have long assessed that Mortars are perhaps the most key armament in an infantry self-support situation.  I've long proposed them even replacing TOW tubes on the Humvee.  Albeit guided.  Back in DStorm, I was proposing that IR/TV guided 120mm on Humvee with both Marines/Army, at all levels would be devastating and reduce need for Bradley/armor in many cases of rapid infantry mobilization.  But even in armored formations, guided 120mm (and with todays tech, 81 as well) would well supplement, and save a ton of artillery support dependence and millions of small rounds.  3-4 guided rounds would pretty much end many fire fights on a single located target within range.  And the mobility wouldn't be delayed.  I also support the remote fire tube concept for Humvee from within.  In order to shoot on the move better, without loaders being unnecessary targets.
 
Also, I'd take it up a notch with today's tech.. absolutely at the platoon level 60mm class TV/IR-guided RPG could be easily integrated with little weight and with a 1-1.5 range.  Mate off the shelf drone-type tech with an RPG round and you're good.  Would it cost a buck?  Well how many rounds are you going to save otherwise?  And how much faster can you defeat (without spraying and praying) and be able to move on?  Besides, they are cheaper per round than disposable rocket tubes which are also a ton heavier and shorter ranged.  The army wants to be mobile, but it still holds itself back imo, with contradictory methods and doctrine.  Anyway sorry for the noob rant... lol
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics