Reply With QuoteThey can be dismounted in most cases, and the base plates for separate firing are kept in/on the vehicle. As to if it happens, I don't know. I don't see why, unless your vehicle had been destroyed and no regular mortars were available.
Mortars in the Armoured role
Hey there,
I've no experience of things armoured, so wanted to get an insight from any here who have done that.
I was thinking that in the Mortar Platoon of an Infantry Battalion, there are 81mm mortars. I'm thinking you'd really want some sort of MT, but if push comes to shove I understand they are manpackable. All good in the light role - in the wagon whenever you can, but able to carry on without it.
But what of the armoured role? Do the mortars ever dismount from the APCs, or are they always used in the backs of the APCs?
If you do dismount them are they ever moved any distance like on a tab or whatever, or is it more a case of just setting up in a pit nearby?
The reason I'm asking is that if you never dismounted, that'd allow you to use a 120mm rather than an 81mm. Which would be a bigger bang presumably. I take it 120mm isn't manpackable, but if you don't dismount thats not an issue anyway is it.
Guess what I'm saying is:
Light Inf Bn Mor Pl - 81mm mortars in MT, manpackable for distance if needed
Armd Inf Bn Mor Pl - 120mm mortars in APCs, can be dismounted if needed
Realistic or not? Or do you really need to be able to march with the mortars for a distance, even in the armoured role, making 120mm too big and heavy?
Regards
BB
They can be dismounted in most cases, and the base plates for separate firing are kept in/on the vehicle. As to if it happens, I don't know. I don't see why, unless your vehicle had been destroyed and no regular mortars were available.
I served in a 120mm mortar APC (the Russian MTLB) mortar company. The mortar was either carried inside the APC in pieces (tube, legs and baseplate) in it's own rack (slows down deployment significantly, takes space from the crew but improves maneuverability) or was pulled in one piece with it's own wheeled carriage behind the APC (quick to deploy, takes no space inside and limits maneuvarability very slightly in extreme terrain).
We would deploy the weapon by digging a hole (done in advance by separate teams) and driving the APC almost over it. Then we would simply detach the carriage and dip the base plate in it's hole. Takes less than a minute, digging not included.
The time difference between deploying a man portable 81mm mortar and a 120mm (assuming it has own carriage) is insignificant or even nonexistent at best. The only real difference is that the 120mm usually needs a small hole for it's base plate. Digging it takes time. But mortar companies usually have teams constantly preparing several firing positions (choosing good locations, digging base plate holes and measuring coordinates and distances) in advance so it doesn't really slow them down when they actually redeploy. There is always a new prepared position to move into.
Okay, sounds like you carried the mortar either in pieces and assembled outside the APC, or towed it. It must've been pretty big for that. But also sounds like there was a very slick procedure for occupying new locations.
Instead of carrying the mortar disassembled or towing it, I was thinking of APCs where the mortar is mounted in the vehicle ready to use from the vehicle, by way of the roof hatches, kind've like this: http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapo...13/Mortar.html That's an M113, but I believe the British Army does the same with 81mm's in a FV432. With the right design, you could also dismount the weapon from the APC and use it in a defensive position or such if required.
I understand 120mm's are not going to be as manpackable as 81mm's, which surely must be bad enough to have to march with for any distance, so 120mm's seem to be right out for light infantry forces, even if you do normally get a wagon or some form of MT, as you can't guarantee the manportability. At least thats how I understand it...
Sounds like you would use the weapon dismounted from the APC, but not have to move with it for any distance; you would just drop off the mortar kit at it's firing position, right? If so, that sounds good for the idea of a 120mm mortar mounted in APCs - to be fired from the vehicle or set up on ground. If you'd told me it was common to get dropped off by the APC then have to march 4 miles with all the kit before setting up, that'd change my mind on whether 120's would be as good an idea
Although British doctrine on this may differ of course... but then again I can't see much reason for dismounting for a long march on a mechanised battlefield when you have APC support, heavy kit, and an indirect fire weapon that can be kept out of line-of-sight of the other side hopefully...
If this is the case, wouldn't 120mm mortars in APCs for armoured infantry battalions be a good idea? More lethality, and you don't need to march with them anyway... Of course keep the 81mm's for the light inf battalions where you may need to lug them around in difficult terrain.
I know 81mm's are meant to give a bloody good effect, but wouldn't more effect be given by 120mm's, especially on a mechanised battlefield where the enemy will be using AFVs with armour protection, I'd want to be able to deliver as much explosive as possible...
Regards
BB
Yes, the mortar was basicly a separate piece pulled or carried inside an APC.
Then of course other companies had this vehicle:
But the problem with these integrated pieces is that they are either impossible or difficult and time consuming to detach from the vehicle and deploy separately. It limits stealth and versatility. Separate mortars are more easy to conceal than entire vehicles. You can easily hide mortars inside buildings and field fortifications and make them practically invisible with simple camouflage.
These vehicle integrated mortars do have a considerable speed advantage in some situations. Especially when leaving a position they can basicly just drive away full speed without much assembly or preparations. This ability is vital in the modern counter battery enviroment where a counter strike can be on it's way even before your own grenades have reached their target.
But the future of the mortar combat arm is this and similar systems:
A single vehicle has the firepower of an entire 120mm mortar platoon (3 mortars), less crew, superior maneuverability and stealth.
Hmm, sounds like a new mortar-carrying APC design which allows you to dismount a 120mm quicker and easier is in order. That way it'd be 'best of both worlds', allowing you to conceal it/use it from a defensive position (although I imagine the 81mm's in light forces have the edge here really), as well as use it mounted for keeping up with tanks and IFVs in the advance, as well as 'shoot and scoot'. I was going to say, having to disassemble and repack your mortars, or to reattach it for towing away, must take a little while and if the enemy has counterbattery radar then that's not going to be much fun at all.
Cheers for the insight, I'm no armoured mortarman that's for sure! So it's good to understand what goes on, and what might be viable or not.
Is that a double-barreled magazine-fed SP artillery piece in the last piccy? How mad!
Regards
BB
A vehicle that is close to what you are describing is the M1129.
The new Stryker mortar vehicle? Did notice it on Wiki along with the M113 mortar variant. Mounts the 120mm, right?
120mm from an APC, dismountable seems the way to go for armoured/mech forces. But not sure if it should be tracked (FV432, M113, perhaps IFV derivatives even) or wheeled like the Stryker version.
The Stryker version is no doubt the way to go for Stryker brigades and the new mediumweight air-deployable forces, but I have a feeling those wheels will not be as useful and survivable as tracks on a properly armoured battlefield, so for armoured/mech forces perhaps old school tracked APCs are the way to go.
Regards
BB
True, but you also have to remember that tracked vehicles are much more expensive and cost more to maintain that wheeled vehicles. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "a properly armored battlefield," but on the entirely mechanized battlefield that you describe (if there is such a thing), the role of mortars are very limited.
And if you´d like your armoured mortar system airborne and delivered by... e.g. a Chinook or a Sikorski CH 53 - here you go:
http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/i...id=3727&lang=3Combining various Wiesel 2 ("weasel") armoured reconnaissance and C4I vehicles with a lightweight mortar track, this pioneering concept is Rheinmetall's response to the technological challenges of the new global security situation. In every respect – from strategic and tactical mobility and operational flexibility to reconnaissance and command capabilities and battlefield lethality – the system is totally oriented to the altered mission requirements of the modern military.
Linked by a digital command and control network, this integrated combat system consists of a lightweight Wiesel 2 mortar track – which provides fire support for infantry formations and fires specially developed new mortar ammunition – coupled with command and fire control vehicles as well as a Joint Fires Support Team (Wiesel 2 vehicles equipped with integrated observation sensors and laser target designators).
Welding the individual vehicles into a single information network ensures a constant exchange of operationally relevant data: information is analyzed on a teamwork basis, appropriate action decided, fire control data generated, and targets engaged with the lightweight track-mounted mortar.
Consisting of two Wiesel 2 vehicles packed with communications equipment, the Joint Fires Support Team (JFST) is equipped with an extendable surveillance system comprising a high-resolution CCD camera, a 3rd-generation thermal imaging device, a laser pointer and a laser rangefinder for tactical reconnaissance operations. Via integrated command and fire control systems, details of autonomously detected targets are transmitted to other members of the multiple-vehicle system as well as to units outside the network and other components of the armed forces. To enable engagement of high-value targets while simultaneously minimizing collateral damage, the JFST's forward air controller component is equipped with a laser target designator for controlling laser guided ammunitions.
A state-of-the-art lightweight mortar-track furnishes the network's firepower. Armed with a computer-controlled 120 mm mortar, the vehicle features a hybrid navigation system and advanced fire control technology, meaning that it can be ready for action very quickly. With newly developed Rheinmetall Defence mortar rounds, it can engage targets up to 8 km away with pinpoint accuracy. Also envisaged is the future use of end-phase guided munitions.
Last edited by little icebear; 04-23-2008 at 10:31 PM.
Yeh, I'm sure that mortars won't be the most effective when the enemy is largely in AFVs, but equally, they could be used to degrade an enemy by damaging optics, antennas, tracks etc and forcing the enemy to operate closed down. As well as the smoke-laying role.
Actually, thinking about it, maybe there is a big benefit to having 120mm mortars rather than 81's in an armoured environment. I seem to remember reading that theres recently been a development in anti-tank arty rounds, something that can look down and seek out AFVs as it falls, or perhaps hangs beneath a canopy. Not sure how effective this particular arty system is (or even if I remembered it right!) but in any case, using larger mortar rounds must give you more room to play with for developing unusual ammunition with new applications like this.
By armoured battlefield, I meant one where the main protagonists are IFVs and MBTs as opposed to dismounted infantry and soft skinned vehicles... I suppose this has become less likely since the end of the Cold War, but there is still a need to field these forces, as I think Iraq in 2003 demonstrated.
But I reckon you're spot on with the shift away from this sort of warfare and towards vehicles which are armoured but still capable of being air delivered, and here wheeled AFVs like the Stryker you mentioned seem to lead the way (although Germany has an unusual little AFV called Wiesel II that is air deliverable and tracked too)... Kind've strikes a different, more compromised balance in the 'armoured mobile heavily-armed' vs 'quickly strategically deployable by air' spectrum; and the fact that the vehicles are armoured must be attractive to anyone who has to worry about force protection...
Oops, took so long to write my post I didnt see youd already flagged up Wiesel II! Helicopter-carried tracked armoured vehicles is really a niche market they have there!
Regards
BB
The 2 barreled mortar vehicle is called AMOS (there's also a variant with a single barrel). Two automatic 120mm mortars that also have the capability for direct fire and multiple round simultaneous impact.
Eventually heavy mortars will look more and more like the AMOS system and SPG's instead of just regular mortars bolted on vehicles or towed behind them. But I believe that lighter mortars will stay mostly man portable.
Both the 81mm and 120mm have their own roles so it isn't really a choice between one or the other. 81mm are a company level light support weapons and 120mm's are brigade level "artillery".
Last edited by Kaapeli; 04-24-2008 at 05:18 AM.
Really, the 81's are used in every rifle company? That must get a bit unwieldy, at least in light battalions when dismounted and having to march long distances. I thought maybe 60mm would be a company-level choice, with 81mm/120mm at battalion/BG level... Your brigades must also include some light 105s/SP 155s for arty and not just rely on 120mm mortars?
51mm is used by British troops at platoon level (and I'm not sure, but possibly even section level in heavy formations, where you could stash it in the veh when not needed), I'm not sure if it's being withdrawn now that we have the UGL grenade launchers issued beneath the rifles, but to my mind, a mortar and a grenade launcher fulfil different roles so to keep them would be a good idea. I'm also interested to know if the new 60mm mortar I've heard about would be the same model as the U.S. 60mm, if anyone knows...
That AMOS system looks like a beast, I suppose it's all magazine fed too. Direct fire automatic mortars sounds crazy, not sure I would want to be on the receiving end of all that. I'm sure it's good at keeping up with tanks and an armoured advance; but surely it's a little vulnerable in static operations like defence, as it can't be dismounted and dug into a pit, so artillery fire would get it?
At least in Finland every infantry company has a 2 x 81 mm fire support section.Originally Posted by Britboy
Sure the parts are heavy and uncomfortable to carry but a 6 man team can do it without too much trouble.That must get a bit unwieldy, at least in light battalions when dismounted and having to march long distances.
But most modern infantry are atleast motorised and move by truck or light APC's. They dismount only for relatively short marches to engage the enemy leaving their vehicles and support elements only a couple of kilometers behind the front line.
The 81mm mortar has a range of several kilometers so it can dismount right next to it's transport vehicle well behind the company it's supporting.
It deploys with the other infantry company level support elements like the HQ, field hospital, field kitchen, tents, supplies etc. Beyond direct small arms fire range but close enough to offer their services and support.
Over here the 60mm is often called a "commando mortar". It's meant for very light infantry like airborge or rangers that move by foot almost exclusively.I thought maybe 60mm would be a company-level choice, with 81mm/120mm at battalion/BG level... Your brigades must also include some light 105s/SP 155s for arty and not just rely on 120mm mortars?
But every army has it's own doctrine of course how they use their mortars...
It's not meant to stay that long in any firing position to be in danger of getting hit. The key is mobility. Deploy -> fire -> redeploy.That AMOS system looks like a beast, I suppose it's all magazine fed too. Direct fire automatic mortars sounds crazy, not sure I would want to be on the receiving end of all that. I'm sure it's good at keeping up with tanks and an armoured advance; but surely it's a little vulnerable in static operations like defence, as it can't be dismounted and dug into a pit, so artillery fire would get it?
It can deploy in two minutes, fire a volley of 14 grenades (that hit the target area simultaneously if the multiple shot ability is used) and speed off to another position before the enemy realizes what hit them and has time to react. This makes it an absolute pain to catch up with even by the swiftest counter battery action. Each time you fire a mortar you should assume that the enemy knows exactly where you are now and expect them to act on it.
Digging in and waiting for counter fire or direct attack is only the second best option and I can't think of many situations where it would be wise or necessary tactic instead of just redeploying constantly to avoid being targeted in the first place. Maybe in low intensity conflicts if the crew gets lazy or they are to guard a specific area for long durations.
Posting Permissions
