Guns and Mortars

[Infanteer]

I poked around the forum and never found much for answers, so I thought I'd post this in the effort to fill in some fuzzy space.

We know that the Infantry Battalions have lost their mortars to the Artillery.

Is there much of an organizational switch from "Gun Battery" to "Mortar Battery" for the Artillery Regiments?  Are the staffing requirements for both Officers and NCO's/NCM's much different?  Are the "Mortar Batteries" going to have the same amount of guns as Mortar platoon did in the Infantry Battalions, or will it be a new organization (Mortar Platoons in a Mortar Battery?)? 

Infanteer

 

[Bomber]

What did the infantry mortar platoons look like?  I understand that you had an MFC, but what did he really do, is it just seat of the pants stuff done off a map, or does it go into a ballistic computer?  If the whole "plan" works well, then the only real result of this will be that the infantry company commander can get more accurate fire and varied resources.  I figure it would be lighter on the logistical tail of a infantry unit as well, tacking another HL of mortar ammo onto an artillery regiment will not make anyone even blink an eye.  But the way you guys always like to carry everything under the sun, every where you go, on foot, I sometimes wonder why you would like to keep them with you.  Are you guys without the 60mm now as well while the CASW goes through its trial and selection?  Or do you retain this in the companies until it is replaced?  Sorry to stray, just some questions I was looking for answers to.

 

[Infanteer]

Being a Mo' fellow myself, I have no experience with any of the Combat Support Platoons.  There are a few around here who can explain the Mortar Platoon to you (and me).

As far as I know the 60mm is still a good, solid Infantry weapon.

I'm just curious if there is a big difference from "Infantry Mortar Platoon" to "Artillery Mortar Platoon (Battery?)"

 

[Michael OLeary]

From the last version of the 81 mm Mortar publication:

 

[Infanteer]

Thanks for that, Michael.

Gee, thats a pretty hefty platoon, both in size and in ranks (7 SNCO's/2 Officers).

Now, I guess the next question falls to the gunners.  Did they just "cut-and-paste" this Mortar organization, perhaps having two or more in a Mortar Battery, or have they taken a different approach?

 

[MrGnr27]

We used to field twelve mortars in 1 Airborne Battery and E Battery (Para), six tubes per Troop. Thus, each Troop could cover it's own Center of Arc. Each Gun Detachment ( seven soldiers, if things were good......five as the norm ), would man two tubes.  Our "Gun Drill" adheres to Artillery doctrine, or at least it did. Can't say what the configuration is now, or what it will look like.

Wewere supposed to have 120 soldiers in the Gun Batteries then. The strength averaged about 95 troops though.

I would imagine that "The Sharp End" feels the same way about losing their mortars as the Gunners do about losing the M109s !

Ubique

 

[scotty884]

Gonna replay as a now trained and active mortarman.  We are organized simular to the infratry platoon.  We have a  #1 has to be det 2 I/C qualified (go figure)  which I think is a huge BRAVO SERRIA.  I'm just a little gunner 1 hook, and I was in charge of a tube, fired it, recorded it ect.. but cant cause the school in all its wisdom consider it impracticle?  Anyhow, we have 3 - 4 person dets, and well we have ruffly 94 pers in my Battery.

 

[horsegunner353]

There has been some "Artilleryizing" of the old mortar platoon.  

In essence a mortar battery reflects an infantry mortar platoon with eight tubes.  Now, you may be asking why a battery (company level organization) would replace a platoon...overkill?

In actuality, a mortar battery is a converted gun battery.  We still provide the eight tubes forming a mortar troop, but in addition we still have to provide those indispensible artillery tactical groups (ATG) better known as FOO parties...which we were always tasked with providing anyway.  Since we have adopted the mortar task (strictly a PY thing... not doctrinal) we have to provide FOO parties to cover what used to be Mortar Fire Control (MFC) parties.  In the good ol' days a battalion could be reasonably assured it was going to receive a BC Party, two FOO parties and two MFC parties.  We have tried to account for that (subject of course to our own manning shortfalls) by providing a BC party and four FOO parties.  Of course, we don't have the people, so usually we only have three.

On top of all that, we have to provide the Fire Support Coordination Centre (FSCC) which previously was provided and manned by the Mortar Platoon Commander.  To that end, now the BK (Battery Captain - a battery 2IC) has been put in the position of Fire Effects and Sychronisation Officer (FESCO) and is tasked to work in the FSCC doing what the Mortar Platoon Commander used to do.

Finally, since this is a little heavier than the classic mortar platoon, we have included our own CSS element in order to provide us mortar and artillery specific support, whereas the mortar platoon was formerly supported by Cbt Sp Coy.

All that is to say that a mortar battery still has the essential eight tubes of a mortar platoon, but includes all the tactical groupings that, had the artillery not adopted the task, would have been in the Battle Group or Task Force anyway.  For our own ease of administration and to maintain affiliations, we have taken to tasking an entire gun battery to fill this role.

Hopefully this answers some of your questions.  C Bty, 1RCHA has developed a fair amount of experience in this respect and we will be trialing a new organization during some upcoming exercises (the new piece being the FSCC and FESCO).

BK C

 

[Gunner]

Thanks David, and welcome to army.ca.  I hope you will continue your involvement here.

 

[scotty884]

oh oh better be good BK C is in the house lol

 

[Old Sweat]

Thanks to the two members of C Bty for the information. FYI it was C Bty and 2 PPCLI who first began thinking about how to employ the improved 81 mm back in 4 CMBG in the late 1960's. Before that, the battalions each had a mortar platoon of four 4.2-in and a section of two 81mm with each rifle company. The 4.2s were being retired and the old 81s replaced with the current weapon. Long story, short. The brigade ordered a trail, 1 RCHA ran a course for the mortar platoons and assisted in the re-organization of the mortar platoons into the two four tube groups.

The Brits (we were part of 1 British Corps then) were skeptical, but after the CRA of one of the divisions indicated a target to a FC and the sergeant ordered "Fire Mission Division" without batting an eye, they began to see the light. I believe cap badge politics prevented them from taking the concept anywhere, but things may have changed. I have been told by very senior British and American officers after seeing Canadian mortars in operation, that their armies could not come close to ours in this area, but again, that as a long time ago.

A couple of questions. I am not being critical, but a couple of items crossed by aged mind. First, is not using the BK in the FSCCC putting too many eggs in one basket? What if the centre is knocked out with both the BC and BK in it? Who takes over the battery and who re-establishes the FSCC?

Second, what happens when a gun battery is also grouped with the battalion? Who is the gunner the CO listens to? What about at the company level?

 

[horsegunner353]

No problem vis a vis the question, I understand you're not being critical.

We really aren't putting too many eggs in one basket.  While the BC owns the FSCC he doesn't spend a lot of time in it.  The FSCC is plugged into the Battle Group headquarters, whereas the BC is normally forward with the Battle Group Commander providing advice, implementing and coordinating fire plans.  He usually remains in the Comd's hip pocket, so only shows up at the FSCC when the Comd comes back to the Main HQ for rest, to issue orders etc.

Doctrinally guns aren't "grouped" with battalions (of course there are exceptions to every rule, so it IS possible although not common).  Batteries are affiliated with battalions in order to provide a sense of team cohesion, but this really only exists between the BC and FOO parties and the manoeuvre unit.  Batteries are deployed, in a brigade context, by the Artillery Operations Officer.  When a FOO or BC calls for a fire mission, he is not guaranteed to get his own battery, necessarily.  The Regimental Command Post Officer will determine which battery(ies) are available and direct them to fire in support of the observer depending on the target description. The Ops O of course, being intimately involved in the planning of the operation, will have the final say on how many guns or batteries are to fire and the number of rounds to be used. Suffice it to say, the FOO just wants to see bullets on the ground.

WRT the provision of advice, the BC advises the CO, and the FOO advises the Company commander.  At the Brigade level the Arty CO advises the Brigade Commander.

If I understand your question, I think you're refering to a potential conflict between a mortar battery and a gun battery if both are tasked to support a battalion.  If that is the case, a mortar battery wouldn't be assigned, we would have to form a mortar platoon along the lines of the classic infantry model and it would effectively become a sub-sub-unit of the infantry battalion. 

Cheers

 

[Old Sweat]

Thanks for the clarifications. I can't disagree with very much in your response, except for the last point. I am not sure that changing the mortar battery organization to a mortar platoon is the way to go when a gun battery is "assigned" along with a mortar battery, especially as affiliation is all about providing the best possible support to the manoeuvre unit. I hope you are not implying that the mortar BC and FOOs would leave the battalion,especially if they had established a close working relationship. However, I have not spent the time studying the pros and cons, so I may be very far out in left field here.

 

[horsegunner353]

I'm not implying that at all. I think the confusion exists in how we would go about providing this support.  If, for instance, we decided to deploy a Brigade on operations, complete with a direct support regiment, the artillery would be severely taxed.  To use 1 CMBG as an example, 1 RCHA would be required to provide three gun batteries and three mortar platoons.  We obviously don't have the manning for that so we would need augmentation in order to fill all those positions.

The BC/FOOs would never leave the battalion. They're really the only common thread... we would provide the same BC and FOOs if we deployed as a mortar battery or a gun battery, which is how we maintain the affiliation.  If the aforementioned scenario were to happen, it would be most likely that 1 RCHA would deploy as a standard gun regiment and the augmentees (either from 2 RCHA, 5 RALC or the reserves) would provide the mortar troops.  The affiliation will never change.  Each battery in 1 RCHA is tasked to train as a gun battery (LG1) as well as a mortar battery in order to maintain the capability.  When it comes right down to it, the only thing that makes a mortar platoon or troop into a mortar battery is the inclusion of the BC, FOOs, FSCC and echelon.  Even as a mortar battery the tubes would be deployed very similarly to the classic infantry mortar platoon.

 

[Old Sweat]

Thanks. That is a lot clearer now, even if the answer in terms of being able to find warm bodies in the gunner community for all the tasks is not very encouraging, especially after ROTO 0 or 1. It all comes down to PYs and trying to make the best of a not very good situation for the army as a whole.

By the way, how do the troops like the new 105 light gun? How is it for accuracy and consistency at the sharp end? The only time I actually got near one was at the Canadian War Musuem a few years back during a display. The gentleman who had been the SMIG when I was CIG and I got crawling around it. We must have seemed like a pair of senile old fats to the bombardier from 2 RCHA who was looking after it. 

 

[Gunner]

Old Sweat, I don't think I realized you were a gunner.  Welcome to the artillery forum as well as army.ca.  I have no doubt you will provide much valuable insight for all of us.

Regards 

 

[Old Sweat]

Gunner,

Thanks for the welcome. I am not sure how much I can add that is current.

Warning, don't get me going on my 1973 attachment to an Italian mountain artillery regiment that was still moving its L5s packed on mules. And you guys thought you were getting old.

Having looked through the forum, it all seems familiar somehow.

Ubique

 

[Gunner]

As they told us many years ago...Once a Gunner, Always a Gunner!

 

[Gunner]

I am not sure how much I can add that is current.

And just a follow up...Common sense is never dated!

 

[Gunner]

Mountie, I split off your excellent post into its own thread.  I think the content is deserving of its own topic.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29190.0.html

Gunner