Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
There are 1,000 m LRF for Golfers and hunters on the market. A few hundred bucks a piece. They use civilian standard batteries and the power consumption is ridiculously low - a battery set could easily serve for a full deployment.
The weight is about 1.5 lbs, one per squad is easily acceptable.
Them getting dirty or break is a less marginal problem than power.
While reading this article, The Defence of Strong Point Centre from the Canadian Military Journal, I came across the following statement;
.Quote:
Larochelle thought he was hallucinating when he witnessed what he perceived as mini-explosions going off above his outpost. Little did he realize at the time that the enemy was using RPG munitions that emitted mini cluster rounds from their 75mm warheads, which, in turn, exploded, spraying deadly shrapnel, much like an air-burst round
AFAIK the RPG series do not have sub-munition/DPICM-style rounds. Is the report accurate or is it simply a case of the Taliban using the self-destruct fragmentation effect of the warhead when fired at extreme range?
I think the latter (thus pointing to the Taliban using RPGs either from farther away than the contact reported above or using the RPGs in the ad hoc mortar role as the Mujahedeen did during the Afghan-Soviet conflict, though usually out of necessity). I say that because the target of the above RPG strike was the Forward Observation Post/Strong Point centre located in and around a thickly built mud, straw, thatch hut within which above mentioned Pvt Larochelle was manning a GPMG and which had a “loose tarpaulin” roof which likely would have proved a tempting target; they may have decided to use their RPGs to lob one into/over the compound.
Of course the other possibility is that, in the absence of Taliban mortars equipped with such rounds (there is no mention of mortars being used by the Taliban in the engagement recounted in the original article, only RPKs and RPGs) and assuming that the munitions identified were indeed sub-munition rounds could they be the result of rcl rifle fire? Which leads me to ponder the same question above?
What say my betters?
(p.s. Can anyone tell me where I'm going wrong with my quotes?)
Part of the British Army's FIST (Future Infantry Soldier Technology) plan is for officers and NCOs to be issued Vectronix MOSKITO binoculars with a built-in LRF, while the SA80/UGL will be fitted with the Rapid Acquisition Aiming Module which also has an LRF.
http://www.armedforces-int.com/artic...onix-raam.html
http://www.miloptik.se/pdf/moskito_flyer.pdf
http://www.jag.as/Wilcox_Media/TDS11...le%20-RAAM.pdf
From what I've read the US has similar kit either already or coming soon. To a layman like me at least though some of this stuff appears unnecessarily heavy and bulky. Are their lighter solutions out there?
First I thougt that I'll post this letter to "Indirect fire support in small wars" thread, but I decided to post it here.
Quote:
Supporting assets is either artillery, if in range, or more commonly air strikes. My question, can U.S. troops be provided enough organic lethality that they can overmatch the enemy with both direct and indirect fires without having to wait for air strikes? Prompt air support might not always be available and the infantry must have the weapons to overmatch the Taliban.
http://defensetech.org/2010/03/01/ta...alf-kilometer/Quote:
Another U.S. shortcoming in the small arms fight is the lack of a GPS guided mortar round. Only now is the Army developing a GPS round for its 60mm and 81mm mortars, and they have yet to reach the battlefield. With a 60mm mortar and GPS guided rounds, American infantry would be ale to accurately target Taliban fighters on the next ridgeline, and even behind it.
Is this restart for UK Merlin shell project?
http://www.armyrecognition.com/forum...opic.php?t=763
IMI has Laser and GPS guided Mortar rounds in 120 and 81mm. Having said, IIRC that the stated accuracy is a CEP of about 5-8m for GPS.
60 is not yet possible last I checked.
Basically on this subject, if we just looked to improve performance and stopped seeking "new capabilities" life would get a lot simpler.
Kiwigrunt's first post started the discussion about Javelin and Spike. Wilf, could you disclose the approximate price of this IMI 81 mm round to make comparsion with Javelin/Spike? Isn't 120 mm mortar too much for dismounted infantry in mountains?
If you have to hump it, I consider the 81 mm mortar to too heavy to transport and to sustain to be a dismounted company weapon. With pack animals this can be different. Even 60 mm rounds get *very* heavy if you have to transport a sensible amount spread out on your backs up and down steep slopes. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by kaur
Firn
Errrr... no, cos I don't know and I do not want to make enemies out of both IMI and Rafael by asking :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kaur
- and actually I cannot see it as a useful comparison.
I wouldn't argue. Back in the day we routinely carried 2 x 81mm, but I never saw it as being particularly sensible.Quote:
Isn't 120 mm mortar too much for dismounted infantry in mountains?
METT-TC. Right tool for the job. At 29 Palms, rocky desert, range estimation is difficult for several reasons and thus the LRF and such are beneficial as are they in mountains or on open plains but they aren't necessary in urban, heavily wooded or jungle environments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt
Range estimation is not difficult, it just is poorly and rarely trained. Once trained it must be practiced and that isn't done either because most units spend too much time in garrison and not enough in training; the cop out for saving that money because filed training is expensive is to spend more money buying technological substitutes for competent training. :mad:
Basic problem is that you're going to do the same thing with military equipment we've done with social welfare -- make it truly unaffordable. Not even the wealthy west can afford to really equip a large Army that well. True, today's Armies are small and professional and thus lots of good equipment is affordable -- but they will have to train any required future large Armies and they won't know how...
We prove daily that we do not learn well from the past.We agree that more and better training is required but we really disagree on the answer -- 'giving in' to technology is the old slippery slope. Most warfighting skills are cognitive, use 'em or lose 'em.Quote:
I agree with you that good training and the individual’s ability to master these skills without the gadgets is preferable, but it just doesn’t seem to be happening (enough).
I have absolutely no problem with using all the technology that's available and pushing the envelope to get more. What I do have a problem with is the fact that substituting technology for training is a fool's game. A well trained individual will get more benefit and therefor more power from technology than will a barely competent user.Quote:
So would it not be better to swallow our pride and break the status quo by allowing today’s technology to help us out?
It is not a question of pride, not at all. it is a question of enhancing capability -- and retaining only slightly degraded capability under adverse circumstances. That's just common sense. US Artillery adopted computers early on -- and they learned the hard way they had better teach FDC personnel how to use the old manual Plotting Board as well. So they do...
The broader problem is that warfare provides a harsh environment and most modern tech, while reasonably sturdy is not fail safe -- and you can't always rely on the availability of others in order to swap or borrow equipment. Murphy says, correctly, that it will not work when you most need it... :DI did not say or even imply that; those are your words and the rifle / sword analogy has no relationship to anything I did say. ;)Quote:
I’ll admit that over-reliance on gadgets will almost certainly blunten the ‘naked’ skills, and minimising that is/will be a challenge, but I think that using that as a justification to not use these tools does us a disservice, especially where the use of these tools increases effect measurably.
Fuchs:Exactly. Also add the logistic footprint of that power...Quote:
Them getting dirty or break is a less marginal problem than power.
That and the skill loss. Most forces today are professional and capable of learning and doing far more than they are currently asked. They are trained and treated as a bunch of barley competent conscripts. That is just stupid.
60 and 80mm may have insufficient range/ceiling to meet the requirements for mountain (not hill) warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaur
The German army uses exclusively 120mm and that's enough in my opinion. 60mm mortars with aimed indirect fire capability (= with bipod, not commando mortars) are already very heavy and the ammunition is very heavy as well. That limits the potential in mobile dismounted actions much.
It's often better to have two teams of 120mm mortars leap-frogging and providing continuous support from somewhere where they can still use small vehicles to carry the hardware.
I have never understood why some people like the idea of a 60 or 81mm mortar in an infantry company. That sounds about as smart to me as telling the Coy to carry barbed wire and filled sandbags ready to use into action.
Well, a lot of armies have mortars at the platoon or company level, mainly 60mm, either commando or bipod/tripod-mounted, though most of the latter can be used in the handheld mode too. They include the US, British (who are replacing their 51s with 60s), Danish (who recently reintroduced 60mm mortars after getting rid of them for a while), South African, Canadian (though their 60s might go and their 81s are already part of the artillery), and at least some units of the Italian army. The US, Canada, Britain and Denmark have all used them recently in Afghanistan. So they can't be that useless. I suppose different armies just have different ways of doing things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
METT-TC. Combination of experience factors and who got fought where; the British, french Russian and US have fought over far more diverse terrain and have used far greater separation between units than some others.Quote:
Originally Posted by baboon6
Very, true, because Kg of kg they are the most efficient HE Projectors you can find. - they are also highly effective. The UK had the 2inch/51mm for nearly 70 years. Excellent weapon, if correctly used in a sensible way. The hand-held 60mm should provide much the same capability.Quote:
Originally Posted by baboon6
....all dear to my heart as i did several presentations in 2003-4 telling folk that getting rid of the 51mm was madness, and got told I was wrong. In 2006, they bring in the 60mm!!! - for exactly the reasons I said the 51mm should stay! :)
I don't think it does limit the potential at all, at least not if you know what you're doing and can plan effectively. That's like saying that the ability to only move at 3.5 mph limits mobility...it's a big "no duh!", but it has to be applied in context.Quote:
60mm mortars with aimed indirect fire capability (= with bipod, not commando mortars) are already very heavy and the ammunition is very heavy as well. That limits the potential in mobile dismounted actions much.
There is no reason why a dismounted force cannot move with 60mm mortars and an effective load of ammo spread throughout the platoons. It takes training and a certain degree of intestidunal fortitude, but it isn't making water we are talking about.
Let's take an Op Khanjar scenario. Wheeled assets require routes to move on...routes can be susceptible to IEDs, so for the purpose of conducting a strike mission, a heliborne force avoids those routes during the initial push(es). In that scenario, ownership of a 120mm based on a wheeled platform could be considered a mobility penalty as well. It's all in the context.Quote:
It's often better to have two teams of 120mm mortars leap-frogging and providing continuous support from somewhere where they can still use small vehicles
Then again, we were talking about rockets, weren't we?
Wilf said:
Mystery Ranch’s new pack: Go ahead, Overload itQuote:
In 2006, they bring in the 60mm!!!
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gears...d-overload-it/Quote:
Here’s the man himself to explain his creation. There are few photos below showing the rig hauling some Marine Corps mortar tubes and base plates.
Wilf, don't you know if IMI is intending to make this kind of launchers for Lahat missile? This missile is 3x cheaper than Javelin, but gives with it's NLOS capacity for some units in some METT situations really good opportunities.
http://d.imagehost.org/t/0045/img152.jpg
The UK has the C6-210 hand-held.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaur
LAHAT can be launched from very light vehicles, but I've never seen a ground launcher. Not a technical challenge, I'm sure.Quote:
Wilf, don't you know if IMI is intending to make this kind of launchers for Lahat missile? This missile is 3x cheaper than Javelin, but gives with it's NLOS capacity for some units in some METT situations really good opportunities.
"spread throughout the platoons".Quote:
Originally Posted by jcustis
There's one problem; platoons should not move close to each other. They themselves should march apart. Any ammo supply for a company mortar that's based on "the platoon" is quite impractical or it implies a very suboptimal movement.
A company that marches together can be fixed as one, while a company that's marching separated may have one platoon fixed, but the others would often retain their ability to move.
In short: A company mortar section should have its ammo spread in no more than a platoon equivalent. This means 3-7 kg extra weight for several dozen men.
Next the old question; why have an organic mortar when the battalion can support you with 120mm mortars over 7-13 km?
The answer can be unreliable comm (no line of sight in mountains, for example) and in the idea of the platoon/company mortar as a quickly available line of sight (direct) fire weapon.
That doesn't fit well with bipod mortars (60 and 81mm). 60mm commando mortars - okay, if the gunner is well-trained. Bipod mortars - not much different than 120mm Bn mortars; just smaller, less powerful and firing at shorter distances.
Keep in mind the availability issue as well.
You've probably not set up your bipod 60mm mortar and its crew is marching with the company. This means a slow reaction to calls for fire because they need to set up the mortar first. They may also become suppressed.
The alternative is to have it set up. Well, now you're either forced to wait at times till they caught up and set up their mortar in a new position before you can resume your march or you're back to often not having it ready while advancing.
The alternative is to use two or more mortar teams leap-frogging. This multiplies the necessary amount of mortars and mortar teams. Still, they're only moving 1/2 or 2/3 or 3/4 of the time that the infantry can move (2, 3 or 4 mortars per Coy). This still slows the Coy down (not that much, but significantly).
The mortar team in its rear firing position would also need to pull security for itself (=needs more than just carbines) and to carry the mortar and the ready ammunition. That requires a rather large section for a single 60mm mortar.
In the end, you need a mortar platoon at Coy level, every Coy in the Bn (3x or 4x) to match the firepower available from a Bn-level mortar Plt. On top of that your mortar-laden infantry Coy is still slowed down and unable to use its bipod mortars inside a forest or on a steep slope.
Even a single company action, far separated from other Bn units, could benefit more from a temporary 120mm mortar firing base in a quite remote location than from carrying its own 60mm NLOS mortars.
An incompetent, weak enemy can of course conceal most problems of yours.
Things are all very different with commando mortars; the bipod-less variety. They can be considered to be a Plt-level weapon just as a heavy sniper rifle or a tripod machine gun. They're line-of-sight weapons that are as quickly set up as the other Plt weapons and their weight is close to that of a loaded 7.62mm rifle.
I'm not sure that they're necessary, though. Infantry should be used on closed terrain that makes commando mortars unnecessary if not useless (at least in regard to HE).
In short: Keep heavy stuff away from the infantry Plt and Coy if you can substitute for it at the Bn level. Mortar and especially mortar ammunition = heavy.
For platoon mortars the mortar team really has to carry the first line load. The biggest problem we had man-packing 81mm bombs was moving each company through the base plate location, and then cycling them back to pick up unused rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
because you may be detached away from the battalion or battle group, and they may not be able to cross attach a mortar section to you - but I have to concur, I do not really see why you need BN and COY mortar sections. The ability to attach BN mortars to COY or group COY under BN control seems to me to offer the best of both worlds.Quote:
Next the old question; why have an organic mortar when the battalion can support you with 120mm mortars over 7-13 km?
We, (UK) always tried to moved with at least 2 tubes covering. - and again, that's where man-packing the bombs creates problems. It can be done. We did it, but it was always problematicQuote:
The alternative is to use two or more mortar teams leap-frogging. This multiplies the necessary amount of mortars and mortar teams.
Hand-helds work well in jungle and have a good record for doing so - and infantry do not get to choose where they have to go.Quote:
I'm not sure that they're necessary, though. Infantry should be used on closed terrain that makes commando mortars unnecessary if not useless (at least in regard to HE).
I agree with not making the infantry mini-all arms teams, but you need more than just rifles and MGs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcustis
Yes, but it mortars are part of the firepower and weight context. When spreading mortar rounds you have to cut back on BB or AT rounds.
Agreed.Quote:
Let's take an Op Khanjar scenario. Wheeled assets require routes to move on...routes can be susceptible to IEDs, so for the purpose of conducting a strike mission, a heliborne force avoids those routes during the initial push(es). In that scenario, ownership of a 120mm based on a wheeled platform could be considered a mobility penalty as well. It's all in the context.
It depends, as said before, on context and METT-TC. If, and a big if the (mounted) heavy 120 mm mortars of the battalion can support you both effectively, due to good training and coordination and efficiently, due to the efficient supply and great accurate big bang from the sky, than it might be a better idea to go lighter or to carry something else.Quote:
I don't think it does limit the potential at all, at least not if you know what you're doing and can plan effectively. That's like saying that the ability to only move at 3.5 mph limits mobility...it's a big "no duh!", but it has to be applied in context.
Considering the points raised by Fuchs the 120 mm mortar, both self-propelled, inserted or drawn can be a very attractive choice. I'm also firmly convinced that "It's often better to have two teams of 120mm mortars leap-frogging and providing continuous support from somewhere where they can still use small vehicles to carry the hardware."
Still there are time and places where the company or even the platoon might have to work outside the umbrella offered by the battalion's mortars. A "true" 81mm or 60 mm mortar transported in by a vehicle and operated by a skilled crew should do great. Especially a 60 mm could fit well into most vehicles and helicopters and is IMHO the most you can sensibly support over difficult terrain and long distances from your back.
I think that both training and LRF are complementary. The closer the range, the swifter the projectile and the richer the environment, the easier it is to train people to guess and hit correctely. On the other hand the longer the range, the slower the projectile and the plainer the terrain the greater the benefit of the LRF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken
Firn
They also have the M6-895 as an alternative to the 81 for battalion mortar platoons.Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen