Bunker and tank busters at section/squad and platoon level

[Firn]

As for delivering HE, it's hard to beat a mix of frange and HEI-T from an M-242 Bushmaster....

When you have an AFV nearby and a cannon on it, all the better. It is hard to carry that kind of firepower on your back. A Leopard should make the enemy in Afghanistan think twice before directly attacking you.




Firn

[Kiwigrunt]

Dr Storr's (former Infantry Lt Col) reasoning as to what creates the desired effects are founded on what weight of high explosive filling needs (0.67kg) to be delivered at what rate (1 rnd per 3 secs), and what consistency (accuracy) to cause shock. If you can find a better way to do that, then you answer the exam question he asks.

Point taken.
So I read it again, thrice. Still pondering it and still not sure where to go with it.

It appears the Russians in A-stan made good use of the Vasilek, I think reasonably well within the context described by Jim Storr. However, they seem to have mounted most on light armoured vehicles. That would go well beyond what Storr is trying to achieve for light infantry, I think. And bringing back the old Scorpion might then even be more suitable.

Speaking of Scorpion, this may be of some interest.
Probably still a bit too big and heavy though.

[Kiwigrunt]

A Pl with a 60mm mortar and a couple GPMGs is good to go; hard to fix it if it is marching properly.

60mm with spade baseplate is simple to carry, deploy, and fire - after a little experience, guys get pretty good with kentucky windage with a bomb with 0 or 1 increment.

As for delivering HE, it's hard to beat a mix of frange and HEI-T from an M-242 Bushmaster....

Infanteer, have you get any feedback on Carl Gustav?

[Uboat509]

As for delivering HE, it's hard to beat a mix of frange and HEI-T from an M-242 Bushmaster....

I'm a little confused, are you saying that it is nice to have an AFV nearby mounted with one of these or are you suggesting that they be used in a dismounted role?

[Uboat509]

Years ago I had a buddy who was involved in a program (sometime in the early '90s I think) to test mounting the Bushmaster on a HMMWV. This was when the idea of light cav was still controversial and they were experimenting with ways to upgrade the gun HMMWVs. He was a cav guy from the old days when 2nd Cav still had the Fulda Gap mission. According to him, the Bushmaster simply shook the truck apart in fairly short order. Naturally the program was scrapped.

[William F. Owen]

According to him, the Bushmaster simply shook the truck apart in fairly short order. Naturally the program was scrapped.

Years ago, as a very young soldier, I spent time in a Wombat platoon (L6) - 120mm RRL mounted on a Land-Rover. You ONLY fired it mounted on the Land Rover in an Emergency! - cos it basically broke the vehicle by all accounts - yet skills and drills wise, we always practised bringing the weapon into action while it was mounted on the vehicle!!

[Uboat509]

Years ago, as a very young soldier, I spent time in a Wombat platoon (L6) - 120mm RRL mounted on a Land-Rover. You ONLY fired it mounted on the Land Rover in an Emergency! - cos it basically broke the vehicle by all accounts - yet skills and drills wise, we always practised bringing the weapon into action while it was mounted on the vehicle!!

That reminds me of a piece of equipment that I heard about that was designed to launch a nuclear device, but could not launch it further than the effective radius of the explosion. Maybe it's me but that doesn't seem like a good idea.

[Ken White]

the same one used in the ADM and also used in a few other applications. In low KT versions, the one used by the Davy Crockett, the effective blast and killing radiation radius was less than a fifth of the nominal effective range of the weapon. The weapon was in service for about ten years; its major prob was the CEP. Picture trying to use an RPG as a point weapon at max range...

[Uboat509]

the same one used in the ADM and also used in a few other applications. In low KT versions, the one used by the Davy Crockett, the effective blast and killing radiation radius was less than a fifth of the nominal effective range of the weapon. The weapon was in service for about ten years; its major prob was the CEP. Picture trying to use an RPG as a point weapon at max range...

Now that I think about it I think that I might have heard about this thing in Hackworth's book which may be why I didn't know that that was a myth.

[kaur]

Wilf, is this mortar still prototype? Did the STI Kinetics manage to put this mortar only on truck?



Here is one Rhodesian mortar unit.

[Fuchs]

The mortar is in use on Singapore's Broncos.

http://www.military-today.com/apc/bronco.htm

[Firn]

Here and there are the answers.

Still the very simple and very plain 120 mm mortars have a lot going for them.

Lighter cheap mortars placed on good cheap trucks are certainly a very cost-effective solution for many a small war if manned and commanded by good units.


Firn

[William F. Owen]

Wilf, is this mortar still prototype? Did the STI Kinetics manage to put this mortar only on truck?



Here is one Rhodesian mortar unit.

See Fuchs. It's on a whole range of vehicles. The problem with it on the "Flyer" in the picture, is that you need another vehicle with the ammo.

[Ken White]

Now that I think about it I think that I might have heard about this thing in Hackworth's book which may be why I didn't know that that was a myth.

He also spread a lot of myths...

[carl]

The max. altitude of a 120mm mortar bomb is about 3,500 m for a 7,000 m shot. Longer-ranged shots are the exception even for those mortars that are capable of reaching farther.

Modern combat aircraft in a ManPADS environment prefer to fly above 15,000 ft for their safety = about 4,500 m Add the max. altitude of nearby mountain tops to this and subtract the altitude of the mortar for comparison with the previous figure.

In the place where I fly there are many small aircraft, manned turboprops and drones, flying around below 12,000 ft., sometimes stacked at 500 ft intervals. They do occasionally shoot manpads at us.

Perhaps Fuchs argument is more geared toward a high intensity fight.

[kaur]

Wilf, sometimes you need to trade all-in-one solution It seems that those guys need also second car.



Fuchs can correct me, but if I rembember correctly in German paratrooper batallion 1 120 mm mortar team has 2 MB jeeps with (50 mortar shells).

I can just speculte that in IED-intensive world those crews are real magnets and top target lists.

[Kiwigrunt]

It appears that the procurement of the ludicrously expensive Growler was justified to help justify the Osprey, or was it the other way around? Cool little vehicle though. I want one.

From linked article:

The system requires two of the hybrid helicopter-airplane Ospreys in order to be moved - one to transport the unarmored vehicle and mortars and one to carry a second unarmored vehicle and ammunition trailer.
In the Marine Corps' planning, a third Osprey would ferry troops to support the mortar team.

It looks like a Jeep, but it’s not.


Now if a direct fire 81 mm version of the afore mentioned STI Kinetics mortar could be fitted on or behind a vehicle like this, than that could be just what Jim Storr is looking for with added indirect fire capabilities.

[Fuchs]

Wilf, sometimes you need to trade all-in-one solution It seems that those guys need also second car.



Fuchs can correct me, but if I rembember correctly in German paratrooper batallion 1 120 mm mortar team has 2 MB jeeps with (50 mortar shells).

I can just speculte that in IED-intensive world those crews are real magnets and top target lists.

Is it just me who thinks that the vehicle/trailer combo is faced wrongly? The vehicle should be able to move out without much trouble, so it should face towards the rear ramp when in the V-22 body.

The German mountain and airborne infantry use Wolf 4wd vehicles (Mercedes G Wagon) (0.75t class iirc) for their 120mm mortars; a known deficiency. A LRIP of 120mm Wiesel 2 is expected for the next few years. I'm not sure about the supply part in the Wiesel2 mortar concept; likely Wolf.

[Kiwigrunt]

Is it just me who thinks that the vehicle/trailer combo is faced wrongly? The vehicle should be able to move out without much trouble, so it should face towards the rear ramp when in the V-22 body.

On the Growler homepage, check out the back wheel on the first photo of the vehicle. Does it look like it’s turned? That could go a long way to explaining the cost increases and would have been done to allow the vehicle with trailer to back in or out of the Osprey easier, I suspect.

[Fuchs]

Maybe.
The German army had a similar requirement for all-wheel steering during the late 20's and early 30's until it was generally accepted to be unimportant in comparison to 4wd OR very low ground pressure.

The price is in my opinion simply a product of profit, custom engineering, tiny production run and non-industrial assembly.

They should have bought one-the-market 6wd ATVs instead.


I would load an Osprey with this hardware by pushing the trailer backwards up the ramp with the vehicle, uncouple it and push it to the front end of the cargo area.
The drive vehicle into it backwards, pull the trailer to the vehicle, connect both, rig the whole stuff and voila - about five to ten minutes.
Upon arrival you would only need to loosen the rigging and drive out - one minute or less.