Infantry Mortars (From: Pioneers)

[Jarnhamar]

I read in an article that one of the most effective weapons employed by the infantry during the afganastan war was infact mortars.

Any idea why their getting rid of them?

 

[Gunner]

I just hope we don‘t lose people in a future conflict because Battalions
don‘t have integral indirect fire support.

Jungle, there is no intent to deploy Bns overseas without integral indirect fire support. 3 PPCLI did not have the capability of maintaining a mortar capability and it was up to 1 RCHA to fill the mortar pl for the deployment to Afghanistan. Now if you argue that the arty will try make the mortar a more complex wpn system than it has to be, I might agree with you.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Considering our snipers had such an amazing success story in afganastan i wonder how long it will be before the role of a sniper is considered too war like and agressive looking and those positions are removed from our system.

After all we don‘t want the canadian people to get the crazy notion that our soldiers are trained to kill.

 

[vonGarvin]

Whether 81mm or not, I would argue that the capability that Inf Bns require is integral indirect fire.  Hell, it could be laser beams for all I care, manned by monkeys, but that is one capability (among many) that that the army lost.  Too bad 9/11 didn't happen a few years earlier, then none of it would have happened.


edited for typos and not content

 

[OldSolduer]

"laser beams"

Hello Dr Evil ;D

 

[Fusaki]

Hate to be a party pooper, but uhhhh... laser beams don't really do indirect very well.

Just say'n... :-\

 

[OldSolduer]

Hate to be a party pooper, but uhhhh... laser beams don't really do indirect very well.

Just say'n... :-\

yeah We know that. Just cuz we're on the far side of 40, doesn't me we know stuff too!! 

Laser beams won't work, but the 81 sure did.

 

[vonGarvin]

Hate to be a party pooper, but uhhhh... laser beams don't really do indirect very well.

Just say'n... :-\

*clears throat in a manner suggesting that a pedantic comment is coming*
"Remember, kids, that indirect fire does not mean high or low angle fire.  So long as a remote observer is giving the target information, and corrections, to the firer, then that fire is, by definition, indirect.  Therefore, if some laser beam weapon were such that some distant observer were to give target and corrections by radio, internet, blue tooth, whatever, then lasers could be employed as indirect fire."
*Technoviking smiles in such a manner that people want to throat punch him*

 

[George Wallace]

*clears throat in a manner suggesting that a pedantic comment is coming*
"Remember, kids, that indirect fire does not mean high or low angle fire.  So long as a remote observer is giving the target information, and corrections, to the firer, then that fire is, by definition, indirect.  Therefore, if some laser beam weapon were such that some distant observer were to give target and corrections by radio, internet, blue tooth, whatever, then lasers could be employed as indirect fire."
*Technoviking smiles in such a manner that people want to throat punch him*

Or we could simply bounce it off a satellite.    :camo:

 

[Spanky]

Drones with mirrors.

 

[SeanNewman]

What about drones that can indirectly drop monkeys with laser mirrors?

Or a CASW... 

 

[HItorMiss]

What about drones that can indirectly drop monkeys with laser mirrors?

Or a CASW... 

or the 60 and 81mm motars... you know something useable  ;D

 

[SeanNewman]

[dead horse flogging]

If you mean dropping wildly inaccurate rounds with a long deployment time in order to get on target for a massed enemy without innocent civilians nearby, then yes absolutely.

[/flogging]

Why is a CASW vs Mortar discussion in this thread anyway, unless the troops firing those systems have out-of-control beards?

 

[dangerboy]

[dead horse flogging]

If you mean dropping wildly inaccurate rounds with a long deployment time in order to get on target for a massed enemy without innocent civilians nearby, then yes absolutely.

[/flogging]

Why is a CASW vs Mortar discussion in this thread anyway, unless the troops firing those systems have out-of-control beards?

If you have the 60 in the bipod with C2 sight a set of firing tables and a laser range finder or good range card I don't see that the mortar is that wildly inaccurate.

 

[SeanNewman]

[back to flogging]

Because in the time it takes you to identify a fleeting threat (say, a bad guy in a pick up truck driving away for example), there is nothing at all you can do about it with a mortar.

With a CASW you could cock the weapon, start firing, and take out the truck with a 5-10 round burst on the move.  That's what I mean by accuracy.

I am by no means an opponenet of the mortar, and it certainly has its place.  For example, on a fized defensive position I would love to have dozens of mortars with pre-sighted DFs at your typical key targets like choke points, form-up/dismount points, intersections, and withdraw routes.

Whenever I "sell" the CASW, it is using the trial results that put them side by side and found that the time required to acquire a target is almost nil with a CASW, where as with a mortar it takes time, and even then the target must be relatively large or static.

 

[40below]

Whenever I "sell" the CASW, it is using the trial results that put them side by side and found that the time required to acquire a target is almost nil with a CASW, where as with a mortar it takes time, and even then the target must be relatively large or static.

I'm still liking the deployed monkeys with lasers a lot better.

 

[dapaterson]

CASW has advantages.  Portability, simplicity and ease of maintenance are not among them.  It is fine for static emplacement, vehicle mounted or vehicle transported.  It is not so user-friendly for dismounted troops who must transport it.

The Fleeing Pickup Truck is a red herring - there are already other tools in the infantry (no list of names, please  ) that can engage such a target - a 25mm chaingun or an 84mm rocket, for two examples; comparing CASW and mortar for that task is of limited utility.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Why is a CASW vs Mortar discussion in this thread anyway, unless the troops firing those systems have out-of-control beards?

That's a very good question Petamocto.  Out of curiosity I searched the page for the very first mention of the CASW.  And I found in reply #40:

What about drones that can indirectly drop monkeys with laser mirrors?

Or a CASW... 

By comparison, mortars were mention as early as in all of the the first four posts.

 

[SeanNewman]

God damn you Control + F funtion!  Foiled again...

Michael, do you miss London yet?

 

[daftandbarmy]

9 x C6 in the SF role at 1800+ metres is a pretty good indirect fire weapon... and we've already got lots of those. I seem to remember that that many guns ranging in on a point target looked alot like laser beams, or a hot rake over an area target, with similar results.

When are we bringing back the machine gun platoon?

(Darned sandbag... makes my shorts ride up)