120mm AMS in Australian service

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: 120mm AMS in Australian service
BLUIE006 6/2/2008 4:45:13 AM

The 120 AMS (120mm Armored Mortar System) is a single barrel, smoothbore 120mm mortar turret suitable for integration on medium weight armored vehicles such as M113 and Piranha III. It is operated completely under armor featuring reduced recoil and semi-automatic loading system which makes possible integration on most types of wheeled and tracked vehicles. The 120 Armored Mortar System mortar-turret fires existing and planned 120mm mortar ammunition and can be employed for direct fire engagements as well as indirect fire engagements. A 7.62mm machine gun and smoke grenade launchers provide additional self-defense capability. h*tp://www.deagel.com/Weapon-Stations/120-AMS_a001428001.aspx The 120 AMS has been integrated on M113A4 and Piranha III 8x8 chassis and is currently in service with the armies of Saudi Arabia and Australia. Australia / 20 Saudi Arabia / 73 I had no idea ADF used 120 mortar?? Is this part of MINCS(L) AMP 48.36 – Army Mortar System Project The DMO site says its unapproved

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Aussiegunneragain Neutralizer 6/23/2008 8:18:35 AM

Given that it remains Army policy to be hardened, whether you call this 'mechanised' or merely 'protected' vehicles doesn't matter. They are sensitive to ground. If they can be used then so can tracked SPs, it's mostly about ground pressure. Then for SPs they don't actually need to go everywhere, that is the prerogative of the direct fire merchants, inf and armour.

Wrong. We still have a dedicated regular light infantry brigade and we deploy our motorised troops as light infantry regularily in our region. We undertake hardened ops when we can but it is by no means a hard and fast rule (excuse the pun). How we operate is dependent on terrain.

The whole reason for artillery is firepower mobility, move the fire not the firing platforms, which you can put anywhere in range of where you want their fire. This is the only reason why arty range is important - more range means more firpower mobility. Infantry have never been in the serious firepower mobility biz, which is why they use mortars and basically handle them as direct fire weapons that can't see their target. Nothing wrong with that but it's not arty.

Correct. That's why we should be operating light 155 mm guns instead of 105's. They give better firepower mobility because of their better range.

The issue is whether or not you want/have light forces, a very different game to medium or heavy forces, and one that Aust used to be very good at. Minimum vehicles, few heavy ones (mostly those in a follow-up echelon). The basis for light forces is that they are heli (or foot) mobile, anything that isn't is nice to have but you must be prepared to conduct ops without it.

Wrong. We are still outstanding at light ops.

This also means you have to have enough heli to sustain them, and this means a goodly number of heavy lift. Troop lift, eg B'hawk or NH90 aren't good enough for serious sustainment. 155mm ammo is heavy, that's why the UK did an abrupt about face for their light forces when they got around to running the numbers (you'd have to say piss poor staffwork first time around), 155mm wasn't an option in the real world. It might be for US light forces, but for Aust the concept is wet dreams in Pucka. For arty you also have to consider how you are going to move between gun positions, both guns and ammo. Only a really dumb arty comd is going to assume he will always have heli available when and where he wants to move his guns and their ammo, it's OK if operations are basically static, as in SVN where FSBs were occuppied for weeks (frequently after a road move), but if you want mobility it's a different game. This means if you do move guns by heli then either you have to move the vehicles by ground and hope they reach the guns before they are needed, or you have to heli the gun towers. Just remind me, how would RAA tow M777?

Wrong again. Light ops conducted predominantly on foot (like in the Falklands) involve infrequent moves of the guns by helecopter as the infantry move slowly. The M777 would require even less frequent moves than the light gun because of its superior range (firepower mobility, your term). We wouldn't need gun tractors and in fact may not be possible given the terrain. If we were conducting predominantly helibourne ops then gun tractors aren't going to keep up with the infantry, but we do have enough helicopters to move them along with them (as I have comprehesively explained).

What heli can lift it?

I've already explained that. Stop playing games, its boring.

So if you have light forces then you need light arty, including it's ammo and towers that are within the capability of available heli for sustainment. For anything else, SPs are just another heavy vehicle, albeit with lower ground pressure than some. If inf vehs like Bushranger can go there so can SPs.

You can keep up that line if you want, but its pretty clear to anybody who has read this thread that you are wrong. You would be better off just admiting it.

I think this conversation has run its course. Bye.

Quote Reply

BLUIE006 6/23/2008 10:36:31 AM

Any takers?

120mm AMOS (SP/Towed) - Wheeled 120mm/105 AMOS Auslav preform would self propelled function....

M777 - Airborne/Classic 155mm

HIMARS - Long range precision strike/ Hi intensity anti-tank/Area denial

Entire package transportable and somewhat sustainable..... As the 120 mm self propelled mortar and would be more numerous than the tracked SP 155mm they otherwise tasked..... potentially this could provide increased coverage....for more units providing greater overall capabilities? HiMARS filling long range duties and providing additional capabilities.

as we all know...these are ideas...

However ... there is no 120mm a requirement.. at present

... and self propelled is a must ...thus meaning 155 SP tracked is a good IDEA!!! particularly the K9......

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/23/2008 11:34:25 AM

Any takers?

I think some people have answered your questions.

120mm AMOS (SP/Towed) - Wheeled 120mm/105 AMOS Auslav preform would self propelled function....

Where would you use this thisd cornucopia of artillery?

M777 - Airborne/Classic 155mm

Please reread how Aussiegunneragain and ArtyEngineer described the M-777.

HIMARS - Long range precision strike/ Hi intensity anti-tank/Area denial

What tank army?

Why?

as we all know...these are ideas...

Yes they are. But again "neat ideas" must give way to three REAL limiters:

a. what is my threat set? Most likely it isn't a tank army, it will be either light infantry or some ragtag guerillas or insurgents.

b. what can I reasonably use? Depends on the terrain and the commitment. The most likely terrain is something in Indonesia or P/NG. That means I might have some motorized infantry,l but most likely it will either be urban warfare or busb or jungle fighting. A lot of that terrain is also jungle or plantation land. CREF my previous comment on terrain. You are not going to see a lot of friendly SP artillery terrain in your area of interest. You will see a lot of places where light mortars and "towed" or what I call emplaced guns you can use. I'll even go so far as to argue that the 10.5 cm. lightweight howitzer still has a place in the Australian lineup because its there and you have the local means to support it.

c. what can I afford? The M-777 is expensive but it can fire NATO standard 15.5 cm ammunition. It is also one of the most mobile of the emplaceable 15.5 cm. guns. Cost is a relative thing when you are trying to get the most bang for the $ Aus.

d. As for mortars, the AMOS makes sense if you are Finnish fighting in Finland. How does it FIT Australia's needs? Does it do anything that an 8.1cm. does not? How much range do you need in an infantry direct support weapon? How much bang do you need to throw? What is the most murder efficient against the expected threat set? Do you understand that a 6.0cm. mortar may be more effective than a 12.0cm. mortar when you are chasing guerrilas in a HILLY jungle on foot-since you can man portee the mortar bombs on the march and shoot from the hasty halt? How do you think the AMOS would do on Rendova, or god forbid the Owen Stanley Mountains, or if you had to chase Abu Saif on Mindanao?

That ain't the North German Plain in Australia's neck of t~~he woods. Even if you do wind up in a godforsaken place like Afghanistan, you have to fit your fire support to your needs.~~ That Australian Army set of needs looks very similar to the USMC mission set.

However ... there is no 120mm a requirement.. at present

... and self propelled is a must ...thus meaning 155 SP tracked is a good IDEA!!! particularly the K9......

An armored brigade is nice to have, but the bulk of Australia's Army still looks like motorizzed and light infantry from here. It seems to train that way and I expect it will equip that way.

Herald

Quote Reply

ArtyEngineer Back to 120 Mortar 6/23/2008 7:24:11 PM

I personally am fan of the various 120mm Turreted Mortar systems out there.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk297/M777A2/MILITARY%20HARDWARE-/120_mortar.jpg" width="400" border="0" />

I believe such a system would have fit well in Australia force structure. I also believe it should have made it into theStryker family of vehicles in US service. I feel that susch a system could have fulfilled themission requirements of both the stryker varients shown below:

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk297/M777A2/MILITARY%20HARDWARE-/M1129MCV.jpg" width="400" border="0" />

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk297/M777A2/MILITARY%20HARDWARE-/M1128MGS.jpg" width="400" border="0" />

With regards to teh Mobilew Gun System varient shown above it importants to remember tht the mission of this vehicle is NOT as an anti armour/tank hunter killer. It is an infantry support system for knocking hole in walls and otherwise helping out the Grunts. The anti armour mission is accomplished by this vehicle:

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk297/M777A2/MILITARY%20HARDWARE-/M1134ATGMV.jpg" width="400" border="0" />

Now to really get teh most out of the turreted mortar varient would probably require a bit of work on ammo development to really let it fulfill teh mission set. But I believe it has a lot of potential.

Thoughts, comments?

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/23/2008 8:44:29 PM

I personally am fan of the various 120mm Turreted Mortar systems out there.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk297/M777A2/MILITARY%20HARDWARE-/120_mortar.jpg" border="0" height="372" width="400" />

Question: can it direct fire line of sight? Answer; probably.

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk297/M777A2/MILITARY%20HARDWARE-/M1129MCV.jpg" border="0" height="369" width="400" />

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk297/M777A2/MILITARY%20HARDWARE-/M1128MGS.jpg" border="0" height="252" width="400" />

With regards to the Mobile Gun System variant shown above it important to remember that the mission of this vehicle is NOT as an anti armour/tank hunter killer. It is an infantry support system for knocking holes in walls and otherwise helping out the Grunts. The anti armour mission is accomplished by this vehicle:

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk297/M777A2/MILITARY%20HARDWARE-/M1134ATGMV.jpg" border="0" height="247" width="400" />

Now to really get the most out of the turreted mortar variant would probably require a bit of work on ammo development to really let it fulfill the mission set. But I believe it has a lot of potential.

Thoughts, comments?

NEMO;

The family of munitions I believe is under development.

There are smoke, illumination, and air burst [VT and proximity fused] HE frag. bombs and probably conventional HE impact fused mortar bomb as well.

What I don't know if there is anything like a breaching charge [HESH?] direct fire munition for it yet, or thermobarics.

Herald

Quote Reply

neutralizer 6/24/2008 7:29:48 AM

All the range in the world is worthless if you can't supply sufficient ammo. If ammo holdings at the time of Long Tan had been the 'official' ones then it would have been seriously nasty, fortunately, RAA had people smart enough to ensure greater stocks were readily available. The point is that ammo supply is critical for arty and it's a big logistic load. That's why the real experts in light forces with limited heli assets, UK, were willing to take egg on the face and reverse their decision to replace 105mm by lt 155.

The lands of the SEA/Pac region are covered in tracks and roads of various qualities. Every island (well almost) in the Pacific is bedevilled with large scale logging. This means logging tracks are everywhere. SPs can cope with this, so can many wheeled vehicles (just remind me what does a logging truck look like?). Its only the inf (and armd if terrain permits) that need to move across country, arty can stick to tracks and deploy close to them.

If you do need to use remote gun postions and not move very often then it almost certainly means low intensity ops, and you almost certainly don't need 155mm, in fact 81mm mors may be more than enough. 105mm will be more than good enough, particularly with the new generation of HE shells with PBX fill.

The big Q is the effect of PGMs on dumb ammo holdings. Given Aust's record on arty ammo stocking I wouldn't be too optimistic about generous PGM holdings in the forseeable future.

I was last in Lavarack Bks 18 months ago. It came to my notice that 105mm were towed by 4 ton trucks. Ahem, this does not equate to proper light forces, the generous number of armd vehicles tended to support this view. I also understand that the gun towers now have to have a crew cab on the bed for OH&S reasons, should be interesting under a Chinook.

The tale about ARes being unable to be trained on Hamel and therefore being requipped with mors is also nonsense. My sources indicate it's more to do with some a'hole deciding that all they need to do is be able to shoot for training their observers and mors are good enoufgh for this.

Quote Reply

BLUIE006 Herald 6/24/2008 9:44:28 AM

Where would you use this cornucopia of artillery?

East Timor, Fiji, Solomon?s, Tonga , Nauru , Philippines , Northern Australia, Iraq ,Iran, Afghanistan , Burma , Zimbabwe Etc

Obviously the highlands of PNG are extreme conditions and light mortar, gunship or air mobile systems such as M777 would be more appropriate.

What tank army?

There is no tank army, primary function of the light GMLRS system is high speed precision strike of time sensitive high value mobile hard targets( such as terrorists or leaders), 70km sniper rifle, bunker buster, area denial , force destruction etc ? such systems of been used very effectively in support of light forces in the Middle East and Central Asia. If in the unlikely event Australia faced a tank army in ALSO could be used in that role.

It is C-130 rapid deployable unlike SP tracked.

Why?

So we can transport it by Air in the South Pacific? Isn?t that obvious? Things have a habit of happening quickly in south pacific?

a. what is my threat set? Most likely it isn't a tank army, it will be either light infantry or some ragtag guerillas or insurgents.

Agreed! Hence rapid deployable mortar and rocket systems are ideal not counter fast emerging threats in our region, not mechanized systems that must be deployed by ship.

b. what can I reasonably use? Depends on the terrain and the commitment. The most likely terrain is something in Indonesia or P/NG. That means I might have some motorized infantry, l but most likely it will either be urban warfare or bush or jungle fighting. A lot of that terrain is also jungle or plantation land. CREF my previous comment on terrain. You are not going to see a lot of friendly SP artillery terrain in your area of interest. You will see a lot of places where light mortars and "towed" or what I call emplaced guns you can use. I'll even go so far as to argue that the 10.5 cm. lightweight howitzer still has a place in the Australian lineup because its there and you have the local means to support it.

True we do need a ?emplaced? gun as you call it be in 155mm or 105mm but not both at the compromise of a self propelled capability. Realistically wheeled vehicles could transverse all but the most extreme conditions? and are cheaper to operate.

You talk about commitment, well Auslav, Bushmasters or M113 have been deployed in every major Australia operation of late?120mm systems could be integrated in all of these systems providing reasonable fire support for these forces. We don?t go deployed our Artillery regiments too often now we?

Part of the requirement is protected self propelled guns?..

c. what can I afford? The M-777 is expensive but it can fire NATO standard 15.5 cm ammunition. It is also one of the most mobile of the emplaceable 15.5 cm. guns. Cost is a relative thing when you are trying to get the most bang for the $ Aus.

True but can I obtain more M777 systems by reorganization of other acquisitions and requirements?

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/24/2008 10:51:15 AM

Where would you use this cornucopia of artillery?

East Timor, Fiji, Solomon?s, Tonga , Nauru , Philippines , Northern Australia, Iraq ,Iran, Afghanistan , Burma , Zimbabwe Etc

You need to read with care what I write. You have a good logistics reason to standardize wherever you can. Its called MONEY and simplification of your log support prevents something like the 75 mm problem..

Obviously the highlands of PNG are extreme conditions and light mortar, gunship or air mobile systems such as M777 would be more appropriate.

Duh.

What tank army?

You might again read what I wro0te about target sets and your GEOGRAPHY. An SH is more likely to smear out the target sets you named with a PGM bomb than calling an artillery fire mission.

It is C-130 rapid deployable unlike SP tracked.

Barely. Do the math. The transporter and reloads including the reloader fork are NOT light. More than one C-130 required.

Why?

So we can transport it by Air in the South Pacific? Isn?t that obvious? Things have a habit of happening quickly in south pacific?

You are trying to lecture ME about this? LOL.

a. what is my threat set? Most likely it isn't a tank army, it will be either light infantry or some ragtag guerillas or insurgents.

Agreed! Hence rapid deployable mortar and rocket systems are ideal not counter fast emerging threats in our region, not mechanized systems that must be deployed by ship.

You will SUPPORT by ship. That is the East Timor Lesson. You might NOT have a runway.

b. what can I reasonably use? Depends on the terrain and the commitment. The most likely terrain is something in Indonesia or P/NG. That means I might have some motorized infantry, but most likely it will either be urban warfare or bush or jungle fighting. A lot of that terrain is also jungle or plantation land. CREF my previous comment on terrain. You are not going to see a lot of friendly SP artillery terrain in your area of interest. You will see a lot of places where light mortars and "towed" or what I call emplaced guns you can use. I'll even go so far as to argue that the 10.5 cm. lightweight howitzer still has a place in the Australian lineup because its there and you have the local means to support it.

Where are you going to use your SP capacity in your geography? JUSTIFY!

Quote Reply

ArtyEngineer BLUIE006 6/24/2008 11:43:15 AM

Its me has the "Vested Interest". But its not blind, I know what it can do and is doing!!!!!

Quote Reply

doggtag question for ArtyEngineer... 6/24/2008 12:42:21 PM

...

Some years back,

one of the lightweight mobile SP systems we saw being developed/trialled was a Piranha/LAV series 8x8 carrying a 155 semi-portee over its back side, deploying it onto a firing pedestal (with limited traverse) on the ground before firing.

From my perspective, it seems the biggest shortcoming would've been you'd have to back into every firing position (gun fired only to the rearward arc), but it certainly gave new meaning to "shoot and scoot" capability.

Although I don't ever remember seeing magazine capacities (probably minimal, if in a Piranha/LAV 8x8 chassis, most likely no more than the NLOS-C offers),

it seems that such a configuration might be ideal for some Australian requirements (if they're so sold on ASLAV capabilities: system mobility without the need to move both towed gun and prime mover vehicle, plus some armor protection...if ships will be the preferred delivery means thru the region rather than airlift).

My question is,

was the 8x8 under trial/development mounting the prototype M777 gun,

or was it using the competitor's gun (wasn't there a compting design by another contractor back in the day?) ?

As for making anything else mobile for light units: is there any difficulty in using Bushmasters to carry a stowed 81mm mortar and a rack of ammo, to be deployed off-vehicle at a favorable site?

(a 60mm would allow more to be carried, but the bigger 81mm rounds would certainly be more favorable in many instances...)

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT