The Armed forces of the US excel at it
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gringo Malandro
My original question was about why we would reinvent the wheel, though from what I'm reading here it sounds like it has already been reinvented.
It's what we do... :D
Quote:
I'm not too stubborn to say if something is better than use it. But this seems to bleed into a discussion of the artillery's relevance in the fight. That may be a discussion worth having but going to the mortar seems like a back door way of avoiding it.
I don't think so, not really -- there is the issue of control but as you point out, that's a C2 / leadership issue that usually gets sorted out quickly. Mortars just give commanders more tools and they are flexible, portable, less ammo weight for equivalent target effect, have good accuracy and great rates of sustained fire.
Quote:
By the way, the Marines got rid of the 105s YEARS ago, which was a big mistake at the time. They are getting the 120s, but those will be fielded by DS arty batteries who will be trained on both the 120 and 777, fielding the one appropriate for the mission. At least the last time I checked. :)
Depends on who you talk to, I guess. The Marine grunts I know have evinced no complaints. Though, having lived with Artillery operated Mortar Batteries in my misspent youth, I'm not a fan of the concept -- sometimes the Artillerist's proclivity for massing fires just because they can and whether its needed or not got in the way of DS support. ;)
Still, the Artillery and it's rules and relevance nor even the C2 stuff are the issues to me; the mortar's flexibility, availability and value are the important things.
Responding to the original post...
...I'll sink my teeth into the full thread later.
120mm is a great platform. Especially the ungodly accurate EFSS (although I was FDO for the test battery, so it may just have been my well-oiled FDC). However, 120's just don't have the range or the sustainability to take a big chunk out of the M777's job market. Great weapon for Direct Support, not so good for general support.
The M777 may not last long, but some 155mm Howitzer will. It's a good middle range weapon between mortars and rockets. There's a company working on a high speed piece of gear that creates a "vacuum" of hydrogen inside the bore and the tube of the gun. Since a round travels easier through 100% hydrogen than through normal air, you can get 30+ clicks with an unassisted projectile. Only problem is getting it small enough to mount on a gun. Should be good for business. Plus, nothing can do illum as well as cannon arty.
HIMARS are a great general support asset and can't be beat when you need dead balls accuracy.
Netfires. Limited utility that can't be more easily provided by other assets, not worth the money.
bang, boom, and the missiles
You all make wonderful arguments and we all have our faves. It usually comes down to the good fast or cheap and you can have 1 or 2 of the 3
The MLRS family can do just about anything you want. Put it in a window or take out a grid square.
It seems the future of indirect fire weapons are unfortunately in the hands of politics, rivalries and St Barbara.
ECR may be dated but, then I'm dated -- and I
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SethB
What about the limitations of the smaller shell? Not only can you fit less explosive or payload, but the incremental modernization of the 155 means that M795 from the DPICM family has an ECR of about 100M while M1 for the 105 is still only 35 meters? (Accepting that ECR is a somewhat dated term).
have no idea what ECR stands for... :confused: :o
Comparing the M795 with an M1 shell is apple / kiwi fruitish. Compare the bursting radius of the 795 (roughly 50m kill, 100m casualty) and the newer M913, M915, M1130 and Denel LR 105 with prefragmented shell can equal that. However, bursting / casualty radii are very dependent on fuze type, ground type, angle of arrival and thus range as well as other things -- bottom line is that the 105 is generally less potent than the 155 all things considered. That applies not only to HE but to submunition carriers, PGMs, Illum, WP -- all of 'em...
The question is does that difference impact tactically enough to justify the added weight of gun and shells plus charges. My vote would be no, it does not -- but then I'm a light guy...:D
The difference is made up by using MLRS / GMLRS -- and to be developed MRS rocket / missiles and launchers. Which offer more range and damage potential than will any 155 shell or possible improvement thereof.
Quote:
Can the difference be made up with accuracy and near precision munition, or massed fires? Is that the kind of thing that MLRS and HIMARs should focus on and leave more flexible and responsive fires to DS and organic FA and MTR units?
Not an artillerist but my vote would be yes; perhaps if enough stuff is available to mass; yes.
Quote:
And for that matter should we have an anti-tank projectile for the 120?
Yes
Quote:
ETA: What do you think of the M119A3 with DFCS?
I think we should've bought the M118. ;)