Netfires - Tube Artillery - MLRS

[Ken White]

Why the 120mm when you have 105mm howitzers? Longer range, more shell-fuse combinations, more lethality, and you can tow with a HMMWV. If you need a few dumb booms to get somebody's attention you have 60's and 81's. Seems like reinventing the wheel.

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...

[reed11b]

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...

BINGO, nailed it one. It is one of the reasons I am a big proponent for developing PGMM's for the 120's the 81's and even the 60's.
Reed

[Stan]

Even in the age of precision weapons, real human beings -- complete and complimented with flaws -- are often left to fight the battles and, administer the peace.

[William F. Owen]

There are only 3 actual 120mm LG Bombs that I aware of. I am not aware of any that are in service or combat proven.

Point being, the Israelis have a whole family of very light and very easy to use laser designators, one of which is in service with USMC. I was looking at one the other day. Takes 30 mins of training to use!

[Fuchs]

There are only 3 actual 120mm LG Bombs that I aware of. I am not aware of any that are in service or combat proven.

Point being, the Israelis have a whole family of very light and very easy to use laser designators, one of which is in service with USMC. I was looking at one the other day. Takes 30 mins of training to use!

Wilf, there are dozens of projects - and have been since many years.
The today American PGMM effort has its roots in a German 120mm LG bomb project of the 80's and is the best known (together with Swedish STRIX and UK Merlin) guided mortar munition.

That's a language barrier and public relations issue.
Almost nothing happened in the U.S. about guided mortar bombs, but a search for "guided mortar" in google yields almost entirely U.S.-related results. That's ridiculous.

I've seen a list dating back to IIRC '99 that listed dozens of guided artillery and mortar munition projects, including from countries like Bulgaria and India.
Americans talk a lot about their weapons projects even years before they yield production examples or a cancellation - other countries work silently on their hardware. IIRC many munitions on the list (HDD search is working) had SAL guidance.

Here's a short and old list that I found with a quick search:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/ADHPM.htm

Even the Russians alone have two systems in in service allegedly (Kitolov and Gran) in 120mm with SAL guidance.

[Ken White]

Putting 'Guided 120mm mortar' in Google popped up on the first page entries from Sweden, India, China and the US.

The M395 is in limited operational service in Afghanistan. Both Sweden and Switzerland have adopted the Strix so it is in service though Ii suppose one can quibble about the operational aspect...

The M395 is an ATK product, derived from the Diehl and Lockheed Martin cooperation on the Bussard PGM -- that ouight to be common knowledge. No one is denying that Diehl was the originator (except the ATK company that would now like to sell it to anyone who'd buy it and is wary of German export controls...).

As Fuchs said:

"...Americans talk a lot about their weapons projects even years before they yield production examples or a cancellation - other countries work silently on their hardware. IIRC many munitions on the list (HDD search is working) had SAL guidance.

Too true -- one of the many adverse impacts of a dysfunctional Congress...

[Fuchs]

You cheated by adding "120mm" to your search

I attempted to recover the table in .htm that I remembered with several google searches and found almost exclusively U.S.-related results.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf, there are dozens of projects - and have been since many years.
The today American PGMM effort has its roots in a German 120mm LG bomb project of the 80's and is the best known (together with Swedish STRIX and UK Merlin) guided mortar munition.

IIRC Strix is militmetric IR and not laser guided. Merlin was IR LOAL as well. Neither is Laser guided that I know of.

I only know of 3 laser guided weapons that have achieved firing status.
Those are :

1. IAI Fireball
2. M395
3. Gran

Light cheap and easy to use LDs have only been around for the last 5 years, so it doesn't surprise me that there are not that many 120mm munitions that have actually fired.

However there are lot of other Laser guided munitions out there, all of which can use the Light weight LDs.

[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

[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).

[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.