Netfires - Tube Artillery - MLRS

[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?

[Kiwigrunt]

105mm mountain artillery.

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

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?

It appears to me that the 'secret' in this less than usual application of the light gun is indeed in the fact that is used in the direct fire role. A job that yesterdays 106 kickless canon may have been equally capable of (with a modern sight)....

The range is also well within the capability of the 81 mm mortar. But the mortar, with its high trajectory, would not have the guaranteed first shot accuracy of this gun (the article mentions firing at individual targets). I suppose a mortar can at best only fire 'semi direct'.