Netfires - Tube Artillery - MLRS

[Gringo Malandro]

120s which are (2) more accurate within their effective range and (3) have a far larger bursting radius / do more damage than the 105. Not to mention that in a dire emergency (4) the 120 can be hand moved and (5) can easily be deployed in a lighter and more mobile vehicle than a HMMWV [to include internal carriage in a CH47 or CH53]. Plus (6) there's a guided round, the M395 LINK [This is old, they've been deployed since then, 1m CEP w/ laser]. Other rounds are on the way.

With nr. (1) above being the big Kahuna of those reasons...

I have no doubt that #1 played a big (biggest) part in that decision. I'm not sure I understand why that's a good idea though. I'll take your word that the 120s are more accurate, though in practice mortars seem to be more prone to error.

The 105 has a much longer effective range, especially with the RAP round, which is 80% more lethal (not that I would want to shoot it rocket off). But let's be honest, when you really need to break things you use the DPICM round, which I don't think the 120 has, though I could be wrong.

I'd like to hear the argument for precision mortar rounds. Sure it might be fun to have, but with the HIMARS/MLRS and the Excalibur at seems like money better spent elsewhere. Especially since, and this may by due to the Copperhead, I'm not so psyched about laser designation. You can send grids from a cell phone, or a UAV. Not to mention you can do refinements with PSS-SOF and you don't have to worry about dust clouds, etc..

You make some good points and I'll admit I'm not totally up to date on what is actually being fielded with the 120, but with 60s and 81s it seems redundant to me. Whereas the 105 actually fills the gap between mortars and the 155s.

[jmm99]

depending on the country you are searching from. Found that out a few years ago when a Finnish cousin and I were searching for the same thing (in English). Has to do with databases and also filtering.

[Ken White]

I have no doubt that #1 played a big (biggest) part in that decision. I'm not sure I understand why that's a good idea though.

It is a very good idea because the Artillery, like the AF is into control and if they don't want to support you, they will not. I've had that happen way too many times and generally for extremely poor reasons. It's a good idea even if you aren't a grunt because it's a more versatile weapon.

I'll take your word that the 120s are more accurate, though in practice mortars seem to be more prone to error.

Wrong, mortars are generally less prone to error than the M101, M102 and the M119 -- however, due to micromanaging and nervous commanders, you find that of the three or four mortars in a platoon, only one gunner and one computer do most of the firing -- the best of each, 'to avoid error' (or embarrassment). Dumb, because it means the other gunners and computers don't get enough practice and therefor make a lot of mistakes -- that's your firing errors...

The 105 has a much longer effective range, especially with the RAP round, which is 80% more lethal (not that I would want to shoot it rocket off)

Not really that big a range advantage and the 105 is absolutely not 80% more lethal, the 120 has a larger charge. IMI and ATK are developing the M971 DPICM round.

I'd like to hear the argument for precision mortar rounds. Sure it might be fun to have, but with the HIMARS/MLRS and the Excalibur at seems like money better spent elsewhere. Especially since, and this may by due to the Copperhead, I'm not so psyched about laser designation.

You won't get it from me, I also am not a fan of PGM, particularly LGPGM. Too much money for too little benefit IMO.

You make some good points and I'll admit I'm not totally up to date on what is actually being fielded with the 120, but with 60s and 81s it seems redundant to me. Whereas the 105 actually fills the gap between mortars and the 155s.

Not really, the 105 range isn't all that great -- 11,400m (charge 7); 14,000m (charge 8); 19,500m (M913 rocket assisted projectile -- and my spies tell me that has accuracy problems) and with the new 120 rounds edging toward a 13 click range and a RAP in the works, the advantage of the 105 is fading rapidly, my bet is that it'll be out of the inventory within 10 years, replaced by the M777 as production of that ramps up and it gets cheaper; that and the NLOS-C.

I won't even address what too many charge 8 and RAP shots do to your tube life...

Of course, if we'd bought the British L118 instead of the 119, we'd have more range and bigger shells but we had a lot of old 105 ammo in the depots and it was a $$ based decision.

The Marines have already or are in process of ditching their 105s and are buying Thomson Brandt Rifled 120s with still more lethal ammo, even better accuracy and greater range -- and it weigh a ton less than an M119. The M119 is reasonably accurate but not as good as a 120 and it doesn't have that much more range -- plus, my Redleg friends tell me it's a maintenance headache.

As for the other mortars, the 60 is too little to do much damage but it does have its uses -- it sure beats the AGLs. The 81 is better for many things but it will not lay down the volume of explosive the 120 can and has only about 50-60% of the range of a 120.

The 120 will do more damage within its range than the 105, it is more accurate, requires little maintenance and is going to get more types of rounds. -- and it's controlled by the Infantry Battalion. In Viet Nam, more than one Inf Bn Cdr offered to give up 105s in DS to keep his mortars when the Base Camp defense guys wanted the then 4.2 inch / 107 mm M30 which also outperformed the 105, not least on rate of sustained fire. Sustained fire has not been an issue in our current wars; it was in Korea and Viet Nam and you can bet that it will be again, sometime, somewhere. You should grow to love the 120 because it's going to be around for a long time while I suspect the 105's days are numbered.

[ODB]

It is a very good idea because the Artillery, like the AF is into control and if they don't want to support you, they will not. I've had that happen way too many times and generally for extremely poor reasons. It's a good idea even if you aren't a grunt because it's a more versatile weapon.

I will take one more internal asset any day vs. support from an external source. Ask any of the guys who were part of the fight in the Shahi-Kot Valley back in March 2002 if they wish they would have had 120s. After this fight was over we suddenly were being fielded with 120s in country. I guarantee it would be a resounding yes. Hard to take 105s into that kind of terrain or even get them into a position they can support from in that terrain.

Another added benefit is the fire restrictions placed within an AO. Who has to clear those fires. When it is an organic weapons system, that ground commander has the authority to clear fires. I can get almost instant support, instead of waiting for the approval to come back down.

I am a huge fan of 60s as well. Did some studying a few years back in regards to firing them from the rear of HMMWVs to provide instant support and from the turret on a gun truck. Never got playing around with the turret idea but have heard rumor of someone actually fabricating a mount for the turret system and doing this. Granted out the back of the truck we never went above a charge 2, but it was effective.

I'm of the thought if I get a bigger bang with more flexibility and less red tape then why would I want something else.

[Gringo Malandro]

It is a very good idea because the Artillery, like the AF is into control and if they don't want to support you, they will not. I've had that happen way too many times and generally for extremely poor reasons. It's a good idea even if you aren't a grunt because it's a more versatile weapon.Wrong, mortars are generally less prone to error than the M101, M102 and the M119 -- however, due to micromanaging and nervous commanders, you find that of the three or four mortars in a platoon, only one gunner and one computer do most of the firing -- the best of each, 'to avoid error' (or embarrassment). Dumb, because it means the other gunners and computers don't get enough practice and therefor make a lot of mistakes -- that's your firing errors... Not really that big a range advantage and the 105 is absolutely not 80% more lethal, the 120 has a larger charge. IMI and ATK are developing the M971 DPICM round.You won't get it from me, I also am not a fan of PGM, particularly LGPGM. Too much money for too little benefit IMO. Not really, the 105 range isn't all that great -- 11,400m (charge 7); 14,000m (charge 8); 19,500m (M913 rocket assisted projectile -- and my spies tell me that has accuracy problems) and with the new 120 rounds edging toward a 13 click range and a RAP in the works, the advantage of the 105 is fading rapidly, my bet is that it'll be out of the inventory within 10 years, replaced by the M777 as production of that ramps up and it gets cheaper; that and the NLOS-C.

I won't even address what too many charge 8 and RAP shots do to your tube life...

Of course, if we'd bought the British L118 instead of the 119, we'd have more range and bigger shells but we had a lot of old 105 ammo in the depots and it was a $$ based decision.

The Marines have already or are in process of ditching their 105s and are buying Thomson Brandt Rifled 120s with still more lethal ammo, even better accuracy and greater range -- and it weigh a ton less than an M119. The M119 is reasonably accurate but not as good as a 120 and it doesn't have that much more range -- plus, my Redleg friends tell me it's a maintenance headache.

As for the other mortars, the 60 is too little to do much damage but it does have its uses -- it sure beats the AGLs. The 81 is better for many things but it will not lay down the volume of explosive the 120 can and has only about 50-60% of the range of a 120.

The 120 will do more damage within its range than the 105, it is more accurate, requires little maintenance and is going to get more types of rounds. -- and it's controlled by the Infantry Battalion. In Viet Nam, more than one Inf Bn Cdr offered to give up 105s in DS to keep his mortars when the Base Camp defense guys wanted the then 4.2 inch / 107 mm M30 which also outperformed the 105, not least on rate of sustained fire. Sustained fire has not been an issue in our current wars; it was in Korea and Viet Nam and you can bet that it will be again, sometime, somewhere. You should grow to love the 120 because it's going to be around for a long time while I suspect the 105's days are numbered.

I'll grant you that the artillery at times has failed to remember "the customer" and that is unacceptable. But refusing to support for poor reasons sounds more like a C2 issue. We had nothing but good feedback about DS arty in OIF1. The artillery commander doesn't make the final call anyhow, and the FSCC can push that down to the subordinate unit. In the current environment (IZ) you need general officer approval to fart, so that's a moot point there.

And as someone pointed out, with a weapon having those capabilities, it wouldn't make sense for one unit commander to hoard it when it might be better employed supporting an adjacent unit, that's inefficient.

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. 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.

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.

P.S. Sorry about my poor HTML skills

[Gringo Malandro]

P.P.S - The 80% was just in relation to the original 105mm HE round, not the 120. I knew it had improved lethality but I just grabbed that figure off of GlobalSecurity.org. As far as the error in mortars, I assumed that was human error, and that's just my anecdotal experience, and a lot of THAT is from a training environment.

[Ken White]

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...

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.

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.

[Distiller]

@ 105 vs 120: I'm not sure the superior range of the 105 is of any use in the real world. It really collides with a low-charged 155. And besides C2 there is the question of targeting. A 120mm mortar has a minimum range of 250 yards or so, a 105mm howitzer a multiple of that. That automatically makes the howitzer a centralized stand-off weapon, whereas a mortar can work with a unit-organic spotter/director.

I do actually see a job for the 105mm caliber, but as a cannon, not as a howitzer. Basically what the Stryker MGS is designed to do - direct heavy fire support.

[Fuchs]

@ 105 vs 120: I'm not sure the superior range of the 105 is of any use in the real world. It really collides with a low-charged 155. And besides C2 there is the question of targeting. A 120mm mortar has a minimum range of 250 yards or so, a 105mm howitzer a multiple of that. That automatically makes the howitzer a centralized stand-off weapon, whereas a mortar can work with a unit-organic spotter/director.

I do actually see a job for the 105mm caliber, but as a cannon, not as a howitzer. Basically what the Stryker MGS is designed to do - direct heavy fire support.

120mm mortar minimum range is more like 400 m.

105mm guns can usually be used in direct fire (some even have shields), so minimum range is not really an applicable concept unless you need to overshoot a short LOS obstacle.

Turret 120mm mortars (like BAe AMS, Swedish AMOS and Russian gun-mortars) are breech-loaders and can be used for direct fire on an AFV as well. Turret 60 and 81mm mortars exist as well (France).

[Distiller]

105mm mountain artillery.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/De...rThedragon.htm

"The Regiment's fire planning staffs working at HQ level and its Fire Support Teams at company level, have directed the firepower of 3 Commando Brigade - Firepower provided by its own 105mm light artillery, 81mm mortars, Attack Helicopters, multinational fast jets and precision guided rockets fired by 74 (Battleaxe) Battery."

Hmm. So the author of this threat was wrong. There is justification for the 105mm howitzer after all. Or is it just because the British Army don't have 120mm mortars?

[B.Smitty]

Not really, the 105 range isn't all that great -- 11,400m (charge 7); 14,000m (charge 8); 19,500m (M913 rocket assisted projectile -- and my spies tell me that has accuracy problems) and with the new 120 rounds edging toward a 13 click range and a RAP in the works, the advantage of the 105 is fading rapidly, my bet is that it'll be out of the inventory within 10 years, replaced by the M777 as production of that ramps up and it gets cheaper; that and the NLOS-C.

...

You should grow to love the 120 because it's going to be around for a long time while I suspect the 105's days are numbered.

Do new 105mm guns like the Denel G7 and the proposed BAE V2C2 gun, with their 32km range using BB rounds, change anyones thinking on the future of the 105mm howitzer?

[Ken White]

Do new 105mm guns like the Denel G7 and the proposed BAE V2C2 gun, with their 32km range using BB rounds, change anyones thinking on the future of the 105mm howitzer?

I'd go with the V2C2 105, the 120 Mortar and MLRS with no 155. However, the US Army isn't headed that way.

The long range 105 offers lighter weight and lower cube for ammo, a significant advantage. The 120 Mortar offers Infantry Cdrs excellent firepower and reasonably decent range with a more capable shell than the 105. The MLRS offers volume of fire/ HE, far more range and better accuracy than any 155 is likely to reach. However, there are some 155 advantages and that seems to be the way the US is going.

[B.Smitty]

I'd go with the V2C2 105, the 120 Mortar and MLRS with no 155. However, the US Army isn't headed that way.

The long range 105 offers lighter weight and lower cube for ammo, a significant advantage. The 120 Mortar offers Infantry Cdrs excellent firepower and reasonably decent range with a more capable shell than the 105. The MLRS offers volume of fire/ HE, far more range and better accuracy than any 155 is likely to reach. However, there are some 155 advantages and that seems to be the way the US is going.

MLRS only offers better accuracy when using guided munitions right? Unguided MLRS is far less accurate than unguided 155mm. Also, isn't munition cube for MLRS much higher than for 155mm?

I'd like to see us develop a smaller, guided rocket for MLRS; essentially something permitting more shots per pod, with smaller effects and hopefully cheaper per shot. A GPS-guided Israeli LAR-160 might be one option. Or the LockMart P-44. Or even a guided-GRAD.

155mm and 105mm seem complementary. 155mm (in 52 cal) has greater range, and far more ongoing munition development than 105mm. OTOH, 105mm is useful when ammo cube/weight is of critical importance (e.g. Afghanistan)

[William F. Owen]

I'd like to see us develop a smaller, guided rocket for MLRS; essentially something permitting more shots per pod, with smaller effects and hopefully cheaper per shot. A GPS-guided Israeli LAR-160 might be one option. Or the LockMart P-44. Or even a guided-GRAD.

IIRC, IMI has developed GPS and laser guidance packs for all artillery rockets over 70mm. They certainly have the mature technology to do it.
Even their trajectory corrected stuff is pretty accurate and pretty cheap.

[B.Smitty]

IIRC, IMI has developed GPS and laser guidance packs for all artillery rockets over 70mm. They certainly have the mature technology to do it.
Even their trajectory corrected stuff is pretty accurate and pretty cheap.

I read about their trajectory corrected stuff. Do you know how this works? Does it use a modified rocket that accepts guidance commands in flight? Or is it just using radar data from the previous, unguided shot to refine the next, unguided shot?

The later would presumably be less accurate, but perhaps a better complement to GPS guided rounds than the former.

[SethB]

MLRS only offers better accuracy when using guided munitions right? Unguided MLRS is far less accurate than unguided 155mm. Also, isn't munition cube for MLRS much higher than for 155mm?

I'd like to see us develop a smaller, guided rocket for MLRS; essentially something permitting more shots per pod, with smaller effects and hopefully cheaper per shot. A GPS-guided Israeli LAR-160 might be one option. Or the LockMart P-44. Or even a guided-GRAD.

155mm and 105mm seem complementary. 155mm (in 52 cal) has greater range, and far more ongoing munition development than 105mm. OTOH, 105mm is useful when ammo cube/weight is of critical importance (e.g. Afghanistan)

Unguided MLRS isn't particularly accurate, nor is the range that far. Even the extended range munitions can't get much further than some of the newer 52 caliber pieces. That said, you can fit a lot of submunitions in a small number of rockets. A pack of MLRS weighs something like 5,000 pounds and isn't small at all.

A smaller rocket would be something like NLOS but if it was just a grid seeker then there might have been fewer developmental issues. I've yet to meet someone who is willing and able to explain the differences between rockets and shells when they impact, with regards to penetration and terminal effect. If anyone has any insight I would appreciate it.

[Sumtingwong]

Seth,

I was an MLRS gunner about 15 years ago. At that time, the MLRS had a couple of different munitions that we worked with regularly. One was a missile, the other were rockets--submunitions in each. Shells explode on impact, the rockets release the submunitions in an air-burst at a specified altitude. MLRS doesn't have to be accurate, it is an area weapon.

[SethB]

I'd go with the V2C2 105, the 120 Mortar and MLRS with no 155. However, the US Army isn't headed that way.

The long range 105 offers lighter weight and lower cube for ammo, a significant advantage. The 120 Mortar offers Infantry Cdrs excellent firepower and reasonably decent range with a more capable shell than the 105. The MLRS offers volume of fire/ HE, far more range and better accuracy than any 155 is likely to reach. However, there are some 155 advantages and that seems to be the way the US is going.

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).

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?

And for that matter should we have an anti-tank projectile for the 120?

ETA: What do you think of the M119A3 with DFCS?

[Ken White]

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...

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...

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.

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.

And for that matter should we have an anti-tank projectile for the 120?

Yes

ETA: What do you think of the M119A3 with DFCS?

I think we should've bought the M118.

[SethB]

Doctrinally ECR is twice the radius at which you can expect one shell fragment per meter. There are other measures of lethality now.

As for ammunition choice, I'm not entirely sure what is current for the M119/105MM. Saw some stuff on the Denel ammunition that was very, very impressive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the M118 is just separate loading version the M119? And it looks like a longer tube...

The V2C2 is also an impressive piece of hardware (usual qualifiers about things that aren't finished yet apply) and it should be noted that none of the current 105MM shells are rated for the high MVs, which means new and hopefully improved rounds would have to be part of the package.

DPICM has pros and cons, but I think there is a lot of need for standard HE. The decision to prohibit DPICM use in Iraq and Afghanistan was apparently made not long after the wars started.

What did you think of the LAV III with a howitzer attached?