Netfires - Tube Artillery - MLRS

[Fuchs]

Merlin had mm wavelength radar.
Wilf, I listed the three munition as most well-known guided examples. They are really well-known, while many other munitions (some of which in service) are almost entirely unknown. SAL is the most common guidance principle among the rather unknown types IIRC.

120mm vs. 105mm:
The French 120mm mortars with rifled barrel are extremely close to the 105mm, there's not much difference (except low angle fire) any more.
120mm cargo (ICM) bombs (IMI, RUAG, TDA) are in production since years (not necessarily in the U.S.). I've even found an Italian 81mm ICM bomb in Jane's (Simmel Difesa S6A2, under development in 2004, 9 bomblets).

I see a challenge to adjust the understanding and organization of mortar units due to the increased range and capability. The longest-ranged 120mm mortars are now equivalent to standard WW2 field artillery.
My take on this is that -despite remaining organic support assets- they should provide horizontal support to neighboring units as well (the majority of lethal fires should be such missions) in a kind of NCW spin-off.

@ODB:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandt_60_mm_LR_Gun-mortar

[William F. Owen]

I see a challenge to adjust the understanding and organization of mortar units due to the increased range and capability. The longest-ranged 120mm mortars are now equivalent to standard WW2 field artillery.
My take on this is that -despite remaining organic support assets- they should provide horizontal support to neighboring units as well (the majority of lethal fires should be such missions) in a kind of NCW spin-off.

Well thanks to some goading by the member of this board, I have been working on some unit level concepts, and mortars keep in surprising me. I am not sure I share the idea of supporting neighbouring units, as that does produce several C2 problems, though not impossible.

If you match the capabilities of your mortar platoon with an STA platoon you do seem to fall into a very interesting "virtuous cycle."

[Fuchs]

I've got a concept in mind - technologies/concepts creep inside the armed services from big/heavy/expensive to compact/light/cheap and become useful to more and more units and lower levels of hierarchy.

The first use of an innovation is often clumsy and expensive and found in navy ships (think about AEGIS, for example) or stationary installations, followed by a still expensive but not so bulky anymore application in combat aircraft (think about the early days of radar). Next are often AFVs/artillery and then it trickles down to infantry when the tech is really cheap, light and compact.

The C2 challenge that you wrote about is no perfect example, but almost fits this pattern. Divisional artillery of whole corps was assembled to support single divisional attacks or Großkämpfe (essentially major battles) in WW2 (or earlier).
Artillery coordinators on corps level or higher coordinated that with their small staff's preparation (Arko, for example).

Divisional artillery was not meant to support neighbor divisions, but it did so - and the procedures for it were the hierarchical procedures of that time.
This can and should be done much lower in the hierarchy today - like on battalion/company level or (with some quite uncommon indirect fire armament) on platoon level.
Modern communication technology coupled with modern indirect fire control (which is quite automated) could be used to coordinate such horizontal supporting fires.
Wilf, maybe you've read a version of my skirmisher text that already had that feature. It's really mostly a matter of communication and good prioritization.

It would be wasteful to let one battalion/regiment fight its own fight when a neighbor unit has some support assets that could help but aren't prepared/ordered to do so.
The 'organic fire support' thinking should be replaced with a 'horizontal fire support' thinking.

Maybe that happens, and maybe the natural consequence would be an increase in range till we see integrated regiment-sized combat teams with their own SPH battery instead of heavy mortars.
That is btw something that resembles a concept of the 50's.


Classic artillery - separate from the direct fire forces - will remain necessary because we can't be sure about the survivability of forward indirect fire assets.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf, maybe you've read a version of my skirmisher text that already had that feature. It's really mostly a matter of communication and good prioritization.

No not read it. Fire it across!

I agree about communication and priorities. It is doable and perhaps even desirable, but I'd only want to look at this once I start work on Formation Levels of organisation and I see myself stuck on units for some time yet.