I'd even question the utuility of that.
Other than as a psychological weapon.Originally Posted by William F. Owen
It looks scary, booms nicely and makes more noise than anything else -- with the caveat that the Mk 47 or the CIS AGL make slightly more sense. If one can afford it, it's a nice to have toy; if one cannot afford it and a 60mmm mortar issue, IMO one would be making a really bad mistake to opt for the AGL.
To contradict the article, tripod-mounted AGLs can be used as indirect fire weapons. The Marine Corps' machine gunnery pub has a tabular firing table in the back for just such a purpose.
But to retire the lightweight company mortars in favor of AGLs is stupid. AGLs can't fire high angle, for starters. The M224 is very easy to set up and quickly put down suppressive fires out to 3.5 km. This sort of baffles me:
Why not? When the enemy frequently engages you from distances near or beyond the max effective range of your small arms, what could be better than an easily portable mortar system for returning the love? (Note: I am assuming a dismounted force w/o vehicle-mounted HMGs.)Other soldiers say they aren't used that often in Afghanistan, a signal that the weapon's time has come and gone.
They seem to have a 81mm mortar in the inventory as well, so maybe it's not as terrible as on first sight.
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_5.asp?cat=2
(Slightly confused; 81mm mortar being used by "artillery"?)
It was apparently a 1942 vintage (later equipped with bipod) light mortar.
We're talking about the predecessor of the M224 here.
But it's still madness to have rules like that and to talk nonsense like that.
Last edited by Fuchs; 07-06-2008 at 08:31 PM.
For our brothers-in-arms, I hope this decision doesn't stick...
Gentlemen,
100% concur with the general sentiment of this thread. The 60mm mortar is an essential weapon in the modern rifle company, if not rifle platoon. As infantry units continue to disperse on the battlefield, they'll need more instantly available--organic--fire support, not less. Check out the article here: http://www.nypost.com/seven/05032008...cry_109193.htm and also review the photo gallery. This is an infantry platoon reinforced operating out of a patrol base, mortars and all. This is 2008. In the book Platoon Leader, the harsh reality on the importance of 60mm mortars was learned the hard way. Initially the infantry platoon did not have it's own lightweight mortars at its patrol base in Vietnam. Soon after commencing operations, the Soldiers quickly realized why they needed a lightweight mortar. For a 2002 perspective, Sean Naylor's Not a Good Day to Die clearly illustrates what happens when "higher" makes the very dangerous assumption that rotary wing and fixed wing close air support are all that's needed for fire support in modern combat. Additionally, the book Phase Line Green, an intensely personal combat story about Hue City in 1968, also hammers home the importance of high angle 60mm mortar fire.
For our Canadian infantry brethern fighting side-by-side with us in Afghanistan, I hope "higher" re-evaluates this decision.
This sort of nonsense is par for the course. A decade and a half ago, the Eryx missile was purchased to replace the Carl Gustav; the only real advantage the former had over the latter was that it could be fired from an enclosed space, otherwise it was more or less the Government just trying to make friends with France. Infantry Battalions promptly locked them up in their armouries and tossed away the key for the next half-decade or so and continued to use the Carl Gustav until DND finally realized that the Eryx was not actually being used. Subsequently, DND ordered the Carl Gustavs removed from service and the Eryx actually taken into service.
The 60 mm Mortars in question are the old Mark 19, bought surplus from the US Army around the time of the Korean War. There was one in the Weapons Det of each Infantry Company HQ and Infantry Platoon HQ; there was also a MAG-58 GPMG and one of the above mentioned M-2 or M-3 Carl Gustav RR. The general idea was that each Platoon HQ (plus the Coy HQ) would be able to suppress the enemy through "Triple Jeopardy": the GPMG would force the enemy to take cover; the 60mm Mortar would then force them to seek overhead cover; and the Carl G would subsequently be used to kill the enemy in their bunkers or AFVs; and meantime the Infantry Sections assaulted the enemy positions.
While good in theory, and within certain limits also pretty good in practice, the truth is that this arrangement was forced by the persistent refusal of the Government to authorize and fund proper unit strengths; otherwise a Weapons Platoon would likely have appeared in each Infantry Company, and this was the express preference of many in the Infantry. When tactical circumstances required the detachment of GPMGs, Mortars, and AT Weapons out to the Platoons, that would be no problem. Eventually Light Infantry Companies received them, but it is my understanding that they are probably to be dissolved in the current restructuring, if they have not been already. This includes the final confirmation of the deletion of each Battalion's fourth Infantry Company as well. So it boils down to a personnel funding issue, as usual, with the Government unwilling to fund additional personnel slots for a new weapon, and demanding that some other weapon be deleted in order to provide manpower for the newest weapon.
And the 81mm Mortar (as well as the 120mm) being placed in the hands of Artillery units is a symptom, after a fashion, of trying to follow the example of the US SBCT TO&E with its composite 81/120mm mortar and mortar/artillery units (something that was attempted in the Pentomic Division). Now, as VMI Marine noted, AGLs can be used in the Indirect-Fire Role, but as he also noted, such fires cannot replace, only augment, the indirect fires of Mortars. Finally, the Canadians are mounted in LAV-IIIs (Strykers with turret-mounted 25mm Bushmaster), and dismounted operations have proven strenous for what are now Mechanized Infantry troops, although ILAVs (M-113A3 with turret-mounted 76mm howitzer) are increasingly replacing the LAV-IIIs for cross-country operations.
The Brits tried to replace the 51mm Mortar with 40 mm UGLs a few years ago; it didn't work of course. The Canadians needed a new 60mm Light Mortar over twenty years ago; we never got them of course, and now we have to get rid of our old ones in order to man the new AGLs, which we also should have had over twenty years ago. Just shake your head.
Last edited by Norfolk; 07-06-2008 at 09:50 PM. Reason: Gaps n' spellin'
Good post, thanks.
We do the same sorts of thing down here but we throw more money at them so they're always an even bigger foul up...
An issue of PID? Things changed post 2002...seems like we are back to post 9/11 over there now. Somewhere in-between 2002 and 2007, I could see the requirement for PID and concerns over P of I factors being as much an issue as they currently are right now in the theater next door.Quote:
Other soldiers say they aren't used that often in Afghanistan, a signal that the weapon's time has come and gone.
Why not? When the enemy frequently engages you from distances near or beyond the max effective range of your small arms, what could be better than an easily portable mortar system for returning the love? (Note: I am assuming a dismounted force w/o vehicle-mounted HMGs.)
The M224 is a great 60mm mortar. I was OJT'd on it way back when I was a Pvt. Stayed in Mortar section for the whole float.
Super accurate, I've hit dumpsters past a klick on the first shot, easy to use, and once you're trained up on it, very fast to open fire.
Its rapid fire is limited by humped ammo but it is still more useful than a humped AGL.
Illum is a good example of it's usefulness.
The Op Anaconda is an excellent example of it's niche.
Light infantry, long supply train, intermittent air support etc.
When I hated humping it I thought about the 81 guys in Weapons Co.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks