Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more

[a_majoor]

Isn't there a LAV/81mm mortar carrier?

Rather than reinvent the wheel, this would provide the balance of mobility, flexibility (you can dismount the mortar and manpack it if needed, and the LAv can carry a fair number of 81m rounds), and logistical support (we already use LAVs and 81mm mortars). I know of the LAV 25 version for the USMC, and I can swear I have sen this either offered or trialled for the CF, but can't seem to find any links or further information.

 

[Kirkhill]

Isn't there a LAV/81mm mortar carrier?

Used to was.....

Found here

 

[Petard]

Isn't there a LAV/81mm mortar carrier?

There was, some called it the "Wolf"; they're all gone now, the last weapon mount was sold for scrap by DSAL just over two years ago.

Rather than reinvent the wheel, this would provide the balance of mobility, flexibility (you can dismount the mortar and manpack it if needed, and the LAv can carry a fair number of 81m rounds), and logistical support (we already use LAVs and 81mm mortars). I know of the LAV 25 version for the USMC, and I can swear I have sen this either offered or trialled for the CF, but can't seem to find any links or further information.

DLCD did start some research into the concepts you're talking about, but more along the lines of a SP 120mm that could also mount the 81mm barrel. I haven't heard too much about it lately so I'm assuming it has stalled, along with many other things.

 

[McG]

Isn't there a LAV/81mm mortar carrier?

There was, some called it the "Wolf"; they're all gone now, the last weapon mount was sold for scrap by DSAL just over two years ago.

The second generation LAVs are also on the road to retirement with TAPV coming in.

 

[GnyHwy]

The question that keeps coming to my mind is why the gunners haven't embraced infantry cooperation to a greater extent and formed infantry support troops of 8 tubes to be issued to infantry battalions together with a large FOO organization - Capt command with FCCS, FISTs for the Coys and MFCs for the platoons (maybe even issue the MFC tms with 60s).

That would maintain gunner badges, concentrate a common training group, maintain gunner career progression, relieve PY pressure on the infantry, improve infantry/arty cooperation, and ensure that the infantry retains the fire support they need at the battle group level, if not the battalion level.

Ref: the 1st para.  We have been doing this to some extent since we were given the mortars in the mid 90s.  We provided mortar troops to Yugo/Bosnia.  In the late 90s we started using LG1s with an air mobile capability (not our own helos of course).  Further, each Arty Regt since getting the mortars has trained their 3rd Bty in the light role to support the 3rd Btln who is also light.
 
Ref: the 2nd para.  You are starting to make an argument for the optimized BG, which I believe is the wrong approach.  An Arty Regt or even Bty, by virtue of range is a Bde asset.  Artillery, has always been and always will be commanded from the highest level.  For example, tactical tasks will dictate for a Bde Op.  An Arty Bty may reinforce another Bty, therefore giving the lead BG 2 x Btys of support.  The “norm” of a Bty being in direct support (DS) to a BG is only because that is all we have been sending overseas.  The Bde is tasked to provide a BG and a Bty stands up in DS.  This tactical task has even changed in Afghan without most people even noticing when our gun troops were taken away from the BG to be in DS to US troops.  Another scenario would be in a TF organization (lots of ANA), the Bty may be in general support to the entire TF but in DS to some sub-units for certain phases of the Op.

The Artillery should not be the source for any organic indirect fire capability in Bn's anyway, they are after all a Bde resource. Even if its only a mega-Bty that was force generated and deployed with the BG, it will still get employed like a Bde resource.

This comment from Petard is entirely correct.  I will now against my own and state that we the Arty are not employing the mortars properly.  The 81s should be organic to the Btlns/BGs and always be your DS area suppression wpn.  The problem is we simply don’t have the numbers to do this.  With our FOO btys and FSCC capability getting bigger and a STA capability still being figured out, we are down to 2 x gun Btys and that is even stretching it.  A proper Regt to today’s potential capabilities should be around 800 pers when in fact the Regt are probably floating around 400-500 which is why we rely on reserves so much (which we don’t have full time). 

One last comment I have is, I have noticed some pers talking about PGMs for mortars.  Mortars should be cheap, fast and effective.  The PGM solution certainly does not meet the cheap criteria and the timeliness is significantly slower as well.  Further, to employ PGMs, you need accurate locating devices.  There is not many ground devices that meet the TLE requirement.  A couple would be the LAV OPV(assuming a good lase) and the Vector Binos (assuming accurate calibration and a good lase).  There is mapping that meets this but, now we are talking about carrying laptops around dismounted (which FOO/FACS do depending on task).  There are some other dismounted locating devices but, we don’t own any of them.

 

[ArmyRick]

After reading what the SMEs have to say on mortars and arty, here is some stuff I am thinking should be the way to go

60mm Mortar-Retain, pl/coy organic weapon

81mm-Return to Inf, re-establish the capability. The BN CO own organic fire support (Rick's Fantasy land still wishes for M1129, 99.9% unlikley to happen)

Arty-Brigade Comd's fire support. Can be massed, assigned to other task (supporting allies) or dividied up to BG. 

Kind of full circle, but hey, if it wasn't broke, why did we fix it? (rhetorical question)

 

[Petard]

One last comment I have is, I have noticed some pers talking about PGMs for mortars.  Mortars should be cheap, fast and effective.  The PGM solution certainly does not meet the cheap criteria and the timeliness is significantly slower as well.  Further, to employ PGMs, you need accurate locating devices.  There is not many ground devices that meet the TLE requirement.  A couple would be the LAV OPV(assuming a good lase) and the Vector Binos (assuming accurate calibration and a good lase).  There is mapping that meets this but, now we are talking about carrying laptops around dismounted (which FOO/FACS do depending on task).  There are some other dismounted locating devices but, we don’t own any of them.

Relative to say Excalibur, PGMM are cheaper, and potentially faster and more effective.

Their time response time is faster because the time of flight is shorter and there’s relatively less clearance of fire to deal with. Lower launch loads allow for an easier (and relatively cheaper) to design guidance system. Right now there are a number of different manufacturers of this capability, competition lowers costs, and some have designed precision guided mortar ammunition that can respond to a manoeuvring target, and/or ability to change target location in flight, something Excalibur for instance cannot do. 

As for needing accurate locating devices, it’s somewhat misleading they way you've described that. Yes there are those specially equipped to deal with improving the accuracy of a target location, but advances are being made in prosecuting these type of missions much like a type 2 CAS mission, or supported arm call for fire. In those scenarios someone who has eyes on the target, or location for the desired effects, can cue those with the specialized equipment to look in the area of interest, usually using some form of aerial surveillance. Those that have been cued to look can then use other means to mensurate the grid and altitude. All out of line of sight of the enemy; a much better tactical approach than trying to do it while under contact.

The clearances for fire and de-confliction would still reside within the FSCC and ASCC, and these are going to become better linked to manoeuvre formations through multi-cast messaging, which should minimize the size, or possibly even the need, for a Bn level FSCC for example.

I believe Artillery PGM are still needed to engage depth targets, but I don't see why an Infantry Bn couldn't have its own integral PGMM

 

[rampage800]

TLE I believe is one of the issues that the arty is just now catching up on, I mean lets me honest, we bought a PGM (Excalibur) without the cape to generate coords for it  and even now most people couldn't tell you the difference between a Cat 1 or a Cat 4 location. Its coming slowly and there are still some misconceptions out there but there's still only a few instruments that are recognized by JFCOM as being able to generate Cat 1 coords ie. PSS-SOF and a few others. Even FV contrary to popular belief does not generate Cat 1. All that being said you don't need Cat 1  to employ a PGM but you better have a pretty good idea of what the device your using can generate.

I too agree that it might not be a bad thing for the Inf to have an organic PGM cape but highly doubtful that we'll ever see it.

My 2 cents.

 

[ArmyRick]

Could you dumb that down for me? Please explain the acronyms? Thanx.
JFCOM =?
TLE = ?
PSS-SOF = ?
FV = ?

 

[GnyHwy]

Joint Force Command
Target location error
Precision Strike Suite - Special Operations Forces (mensurated or averaged grids)
Falconview

Falconview does produce good grids but, is unreliable as images get distorted (shrunk) out to the extreme edges of an image.  Only the terrain immediatley below were the picture was taken could be considered accurate.  PSS-OFF corrects that by averaging (blending) more than 1 image.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Joint Force Command
Target location error
Precision Strike Suite - Special Operations Forces (mensurated or averaged grids)
Falconview

Falconview does produce good grids but, is unreliable as images get distorted (shrunk) out to the extreme edges of an image.  Only the terrain immediatley below were the picture was taken could be considered accurate.  PSS-OFF corrects that by averaging (blending) more than 1 image.

So how many women are in SOF now?  ;D

 

[daftandbarmy]

Picatinny fields first precision-guided mortars to troops in Afghanistan

PICATINNY ARSENAL, N.J. -- This month, U.S. Soldiers in Afghanistan received 120mm GPS-guided mortar precision capability.

The Program Executive Office for Ammunition fielded Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative cartridges, or APMI, to one Infantry Brigade Combat Team, or IBCT, earlier this month, and is scheduled to field cartridges to the seven other IBCTs in Afghanistan within six months.

"APMI is a 120mm GPS-guided mortar cartridge that provides the infantry commander precision-strike capability, which he has never had before," said Peter Burke, PEO Ammunition's deputy product manager, Guided Precision Munitions and Mortar Systems.

Mortars are an indirect firing capability used to defeat enemy troops, materiel, bunkers and other infantry-type targets.

"Typically mortars are fired in volleys against an area target because of their inherent inaccuracy, but with APMI, you have the potential to destroy a target with only one or two rounds," Burke said.

http://www.army.mil/-news/2011/03/29/53988-picatinny-fields-first-precision-guided-mortars-to-troops-in-afghanistan/index.html

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The problem with discussing a return of 81 mm mortars to the infantry is that the last of the Advanced Mortar qualified Officers and NCOs will soon be gone. To recreate it, we do not want to bring mortars back with the staffing and organization of the Artillery fire control system with them.  It's a time limited opportunity to restore the medium mortar to the infantry battalions with the infantry officers and NCOs who have the training we would want to recreate.

As both the Brits and the US use mortars, likely you could recreate the skill set by sending talented individuals to serve with the military that deploys the mortars the way you want and borrow heavily from them. Not to mention dust off the pams stored in some back room.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Technical weapon skills are one thing, re-establishing the integration of command and control processes that seamlessly match our battalion command systems is the tricky part. Yes, we could "blow the dust off the old pams", but when most of our training is based on passage of skills from instructor to student, the pams can be pretty impenetrable to someone who hasn't laid hands on the weapon system before.  Also, sending someone to another country to learn the advanced skills of fire control and fire support coordination really only works well if the command environment is the same.

 

[GnyHwy]

The problem with discussing a return of 81 mm mortars to the infantry is that the last of the Advanced Mortar qualified Officers and NCOs will soon be gone. To recreate it, we do not want to bring mortars back with the staffing and organization of the Artillery fire control system with them.  It's a time limited opportunity to restore the medium mortar to the infantry battalions with the infantry officers and NCOs who have the training we would want to recreate.

I am trying to understand why you wouldn't want an Arty organization for this.  The only thing I can think of is that we overcomplicate it (which may be true but, drills can easily be expedited with a negligible chance of inaccuracy).  Please elaborate.

Also, sending someone to another country to learn the advanced skills of fire control and fire support coordination really only works well if the command environment is the same.

This quote seems to make an argument for adopting Arty way of doing business.  Fire control and fire support are our jobs, something that we have been doing for many years.

That all said, I agree with the Infantry getting the mortars back.  Quite frankly, because you will use them more effectively and always have them in direct support of yourself.

Funny how things come around.  I did a 3 week mortar course in 94 that was probably the most in depth and elaborate mortar course ever. We learnt all positions including the CP but because it was self taught by the Arty and not the Infantry (who were still the SMEs at the time), it did not count.  Now we are down to a 1 week conversion course I believe.  I can agree that you wouldn't want to take the Arty way complete but, I also believe that we do it the right way and a lot can be learnt by some of the advances we've made in the last 15 years.

In closing, give the mortars back to the Infantry (81s is all I think you need), buy us some more 777s, salvage as many C3s as possible and if we ever get a heli capabilty we'll do the airmobile with the LG1s.

P.S. I believe that 2 RCHA is very close to having a completly qualified jump mortar troop.  They could and would be easily attached to an Infantry Bltn.

     

 

[Michael OLeary]

I am trying to understand why you wouldn't want an Arty organization for this.  The only thing I can think of is that we overcomplicate it (which may be true but, drills can easily be expedited with a negligible chance of inaccuracy).  Please elaborate.   

It's because the full artillery organization and fire controls system is more complex and complicated than what is needed to effectively field mortars. The infantry developed a straightforward C2 and fire control system that met the needs of the weapon system at hand within its command and control environment - and did not need to incorporate the complexities of the artillery system which serve to scale upwards to larger guns and larger fire units and formations.

To present a simple comparison to tactical planning process, full OPP could be used to plan a platoon attack - but it's not because a simple and more responsive system works at that level of command. The more complicated approach, though workable, is not necessarily the best approach in every case. 

The Advanced Mortar Course taught all positions in the platoon from the Mortar Line NCO up to the Platoon Commander's role in ten weeks.  It was enough of a training basis to field effective and efficient platoons, with NCOs and officers performing those duties for part (not all) of their careers. If the infantry were to "adopt" the artillery system, we would never be able to commit people to the training system you have built around it.

Keep in mind your 3-week "in depth" mortar course was Gunner instructors teaching trained Gunners - you didn't need to be taught the basics of fire control, ballistics, tactics, etc., as part of that course, you already received that in your prior training. The infantry Advanced Mortar Course started with students whose prior indirect fire training consisted of the basic weapon course and an introduction on prior leadership courses to the all-arms call for fire, and they learned everything else they needed in those ten weeks.

 

[Old Sweat]

The Canadian mortar organization in the 'Cold war' infantry battalions was light years ahead of those of our Allies. I remember very, very senior British and US officers standing with mouths agap as a FC (or a FOO) would produce and implement a quick fire plan using guns, mortars or usually both. "Our army couldn't do that" was a fairly common remark. That the infantry reached such a level was due, in my opinion at least, because they were willing to take parts of the gunner system and adapt it. The aim was effective indirect fire support, not cap badge politics. In CTC there also was a great deal of cooperation between the Infantry School Mortar Wing and the Artillery School. Don't get me started on the destruction of an excellent combat capability!

However I wonder if, given the advances in FSCC procedures and equipment, that a mortar platoon headquarters would have the expertise to conduct some of the procedures that the FSCC provided by a battery at battalion headquarters can now. I don't want to get too specific, but GnyHwy would be able to discuss this far better than I.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Technical weapon skills are one thing, re-establishing the integration of command and control processes that seamlessly match our battalion command systems is the tricky part. Yes, we could "blow the dust off the old pams", but when most of our training is based on passage of skills from instructor to student, the pams can be pretty impenetrable to someone who hasn't laid hands on the weapon system before.  Also, sending someone to another country to learn the advanced skills of fire control and fire support coordination really only works well if the command environment is the same.

You will still need the technical weapon skills and we would see how other nations we operate with deploy theirs. As I recall distant conversations with infantry guys, the CO of the unit would have instructed the (HW) Platoon commander to set up their tubes to cover area X to X. The Platoon commander would then view the terrain, site the postions and with the help of a tech set the firing arcs. then the section commander of each tube would deploy their tube, align and set out aiming stakes. Then proceed to fortify the postion till a fire mission came down. Repeat as required. Is that about correct? 
I suspect the major change would be the introduction of hand held GPS units for the Platoon commanders and Section leaders?

 

[Michael OLeary]

You will still need the technical weapon skills and we would see how other nations we operate with deploy theirs.

Not every nation deploys them the same, in some cases the fundamental tasks for passing of fire data can be different, even to the point of complete incompatibility. I once briefed Norwegian defence scientists for two full days on Canadian mortar fire data processes, only to determine that their fire control computer was so incompatible it would have needed complete redesign of the baseline programming to be useful in our organization. They had hard coded their processes into the devices, and there was no way to reroute the processes to fit our drills. While observing other nations' methods can be useful, they don't necessarily provide a workable foundation on which to build our own. Observing their solutions only has relevance if we send people with enough experience to put them into context with our own.

As I recall distant conversations with infantry guys, the CO of the unit would have instructed the (HW) Platoon commander to set up their tubes to cover area X to X. The Platoon commander would then view the terrain, site the postions and with the help of a tech set the firing arcs. then the section commander of each tube would deploy their tube, align and set out aiming stakes. Then proceed to fortify the postion till a fire mission came down. Repeat as required. Is that about correct? 

The Platoon Commander sees the developing plan with the Operations Officer, and attends orders. From that he provides information on the best allocation of observers (in conjunction with or in the absence of a BC) and establishes a plan for the deployment and movement of mortar groups to fit the commander's plan.

The Platoon 2IC conducts baseplate recces, handing off each position to the occupying Mortar Group (of four mortars). If he has time he has established and marked the specific location for each weapon for the incoming Group.  The Group Commander (a WO) is responsible for the establishment and firing of the Mortar Group. A mortar line NCO, who may also perform duties as a Control Post Operator (CPO), (usually a MCpl) will supervise the establishment of each Mortar under its Detachment No 1 (a Cpl).

With only about 16 troops on a position that will be about 100 m in width, digging beyond shell scrapes near the weapons will normally only occur if you know you are going to be there a while.

I suspect the major change would be the introduction of hand held GPS units for the Platoon commanders and Section leaders?

Major change from what? The major change from the current status quo to redeveloping infantry mortar platoons will require the complete rebuilding of a training and pers management system to field the weapon system that works within the Infantry Corps. It's not just "Arty light".

 

[daftandbarmy]

Major change from what? The major change from the current status quo to redeveloping infantry mortar platoons will require the complete rebuilding of a training and pers management system to field the weapon system that works within the Infantry Corps. It's not just "Arty light".

Especially if you have to manpack the 'whispering death' on an advance to contact or a raid  :stars:

Which I'm sure the artillery folks do all the time, right? (Really, I have no idea if they do or not right now, just asking)