• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Meditations in Green
  • Start date Start date
Please sir, may we have some more?

The 60mm Wonder Got Better

May 26, 2012: The U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps are beginning to receive the new M224A1 60mm mortar. This is an updated version of the original M224. Weighing 16.1-21.1 kg (35.4-47 pounds) the new weapon is a much awaited improvement on pre-M224 models. 
For ease of carrying the mortar breaks down into several components. The tube weighs 6.5 kg (14.4 pounds), the bipod is 6.9 kg (15.2 pounds), and the sight is 1.1 kg (2.5 pounds). There are two base plates. The standard one is 6.5 kg (14.4 pounds), the lightweight one is 1.6 kg (3.6 pounds). The older World War II era M2 model weighed 19.05 kg (42 pounds). A less successful World War II era model, the M19, weighed 23.4 kg (52 pounds).

Some of the M224 technology arrived early. Four years ago a new mortar tube was introduced for the 60mm and 81mm mortars. New metals (Inconel 718 alloy) and manufacturing methods (flowforming) reduced the weight of these mortar tubes 30 percent, and increased the robustness. But the lighter tube only reduced the overall system weight about ten percent. The complete M224 system reduced overall weight 20 percent. A year after the M224 was sent to some units for field tests, a few minor tweaks were made, resulting in the recently introduced M224A1.

For the infantry, however, every pound counts. So the M224 was particularly welcome. But the troops were very pleased at how the lighter M224 actually performed.

The marines and the army use the 60mm for infantry companies (each of three infantry platoons, plus a heavy weapons platoon), giving the company commander his own artillery. Modern 60mm mortar shells, which weigh about 1.6 kg (3.5 pounds) each, have a range of 2,000-3,500 meters. For many decades the max range of 60mm mortars was more like 2,000 meters. The M224 can use a longer range (3,500 meters) round. The longer range shells, and the availability of mini-UAVs at the company level, make the 60mm mortar a much more potent weapon. The UAV can spot targets behind hills or buildings and then adjust the mortar fire until the target is destroyed.

Infantry mortars were invented during World War I (1914-18) but have been largely unchanged since then. The current U.S. mortar designs were introduced in the 1980s, but the new tube, longer range ammo, and guided shells (in larger calibers than 60mm) are rather recent developments.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20120526.aspx
 
daftandbarmy said:
The U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps are beginning to receive the new M224A1 60mm mortar.

:-[
 
This just proves that the US Army and the US Marine Corps are full of idiots who don't understand the glorious wonder of a CASW-like weapon...


:sarcasm:
 
daftandbarmy said:
Please sir, may we have some more?

The 60mm Wonder Got Better

May 26, 2012: The U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps are beginning to receive the new M224A1 60mm mortar. This is an updated version of the original M224. Weighing 16.1-21.1 kg (35.4-47 pounds) the new weapon is a much awaited improvement on pre-M224 models. 
For ease of carrying the mortar breaks down into several components. The tube weighs 6.5 kg (14.4 pounds), the bipod is 6.9 kg (15.2 pounds), and the sight is 1.1 kg (2.5 pounds). There are two base plates. The standard one is 6.5 kg (14.4 pounds), the lightweight one is 1.6 kg (3.6 pounds). The older World War II era M2 model weighed 19.05 kg (42 pounds). A less successful World War II era model, the M19, weighed 23.4 kg (52 pounds).

Our mortar (recently ceased training) was the M19.  It was against this mortar that the "competition" for the CASW was "conducted".
 
CANSOF has a LW mortar -- funny they saw a role - maybe they are idiots just like the US Army and USMC  ::)

 
KevinB said:
CANSOF has a LW mortar -- funny they saw a role - maybe they are idiots just like the US Army and USMC  ::)

CANSOF, eh?  Pfft....

What do they know, anyway?  (It's rather apparent that they are ignoring the realities of war by using a LW mortar....)


:sarcasm:
 
Technoviking said:
CANSOF, eh?  Pfft....

What do they know, anyway?  (It's rather apparent that they are ignoring the realities of war by using a LW mortar....)


:sarcasm:

When the protests in Quebec wind down perhaps we can contract with the out of work demonstrators to lobby on our behalf? They could even keep their red squares and call them 1 Div patches.  ;D
 
Our CQ staffed turned in our mortars this week, the same week the "train the trainer" C 16 course our Bn is running was told they would not be firing indirect as the rounds drift hundreds of meters in the wind, and the templates won't work, their words not mine.
 
R031button said:
.... they would not be firing indirect as the rounds drift hundreds of meters in the wind, and the templates won't work, their words not mine.

If only there was an infantry weapon system that had solved that little issue.    ::)
 
But then we'd have to go through the expense of developing, purchasing, and issuing this weapon system, which clearly has never existed in infantry platoons.
 
Templating wouldn't really be a huge issue, they are made for the worst case scenario for a reason.  I was just talking to a few of the guys via FB doing the course it wasn't an issue.

They did have a huge lack of ammo.  So much so they joked that they would be teaching everybody but would lack the qual as they couldn't do the shoots needed.  They also mentioned the fact that they wouldn't be shooting indirect under 700-800 meters or so as the weapon can't elevate enough or some other nause.  Which leads to pondering...
Michael O'Leary said:
If only there was an infantry weapon system that had solved that little issue.    ::)
 
MJP said:
They also mentioned the fact that they wouldn't be shooting indirect under 700-800 meters or so as the weapon can't elevate enough or some other nause.  Which leads to pondering...

As you probably know, shooting by indirect fire (IDF) has nothing to do with range.  By my definition - it is hitting a target, without seeing it from the platform i.e.  if you can throw a grenade from a defilade position, then you have accomplished indirect fire.

My historical definition, without searching the net is: the ability to hit a target at a range that is unobservable by the platform.

Bottomline, IDF  is the art of hitting a target without directly seeing it.

Edited to add:  You can do this with MGs also.
 
GnyHwy said:
As you probably know, shooting by indirect fire (IDF) has nothing to do with range.

Yes, I was merely pointing out that we had a weapon system that could hit below those ranges.  Now it seems that due to technical restrictions on the actual mount we can't do that anymore.  I was merely adding more musing to Mr. O'Leary's post.

GnyHwy said:
Edited to add:  You can do this with MGs also.

This is almost a lost art.  There is some great institutional knowledge being lost as people age out and the new IPSWC pays lip service this aspect of MGing.  Some units have done a great job of trying to hold back the dam but it seems it will be buried until we realize we need it again.
 
MJP said:
Yes, I was merely pointing out that we had a weapon system that could hit below those ranges.  Now it seems that due to technical restrictions on the actual mount we can't do that anymore.  I was merely adding more musing to Mr. O'Leary's post.

This is almost a lost art.  There is some great institutional knowledge being lost as people age out and the new IPSWC pays lip service this aspect of MGing.  Some units have done a great job of trying to hold back the dam but it seems it will be buried until we realize we need it again.

I would be happy to template it.  It is a very easy job, and a shame that there is no faith.  It is quite ironic that we are forced to use a weapon, and when we do, we are scrutinized (it's only a grenade, and it is falling a long way from anyone (in training)).
 
GnyHwy said:
I would be happy to template it.  It is a very easy job, and a shame that there is no faith.  It is quite ironic that we are forced to use a weapon, and when we do, we are scrutinized (it's only a grenade, and it is falling a long way from anyone (in training)).

I honestly don't think templating is the issue, rather the limitations on the weapon mount itself where the weapon can't physically elevate enough to fire at those ranges indirect.
 
I understand.  I have asked the manufacturer about a 1/2 charge for this problem, but they expressed that there as no requirement (yet).

You are correct in saying that templating is easy; as it is.

I have a few solutions to this problem, but I am not in a position to influence it.

Has an Arty guy ever been asked to help solve this problem?

 
GnyHwy said:
I understand.  I have asked the manufacturer about a 1/2 charge for this problem, but they expressed that there as no requirement (yet).

You are correct in saying that templating is easy; as it is.

I have a few solutions to this problem, but I am not in a position to influence it.

Has an Arty guy ever been asked to help solve this problem?

What do they know about infantry weapons... oh, wait a minute, they've got our 81mm mortars now. All the more reason to keep them away from our AGL, or they'll pinch that too!  ;D
 
daftandbarmy said:
What do they know about infantry weapons... oh, wait a minute, they've got our 81mm mortars now. All the more reason to keep them away from our AGL, or they'll pinch that too!  ;D

What is AGL?
 
Back
Top