Quote Originally Posted by TAH View Post
Tuk:

I choose 6 guns because of the greater flexibiity in sub-dividing the platoon, 2 sections of 3, 3 sections of 2, a section of 4 and a section of 2, etc.
...the following thoughts occured to me. Yes flexibility is always a bonus but at a cost. Dispersing the plt into two or three sub-units adds to the command, control, communication problem especially at Coy level where HQ wouldn’t have the resources that a BN HQ would. Given that currently existing command nets are already pushing the boundaries of available bandwidth (etc.) and dispersing the units entails a greater need for coordination and, of course, more radio nets keyed into coy FDC you might actually be trading availability and immediacy for survivability/flexibility. I have read of numerous occasions in Afghanistan when British units have been able to get the “ball rolling” with their plt mortars while waiting for the JTAC/FIST to call in fire thereby developing and “shaping” (ugh!) the situation or fixing the enemy. Having six tubes dispersed or not merely add to the FDC’s calculations (etc.) during the coy fire support planning process and reduces the responsiveness that a smaller number of tubes, grouped together, may afford. It would also, come to think of it, be easier to displace a two tube section to a supplementary or alternate firing site when needed than it would two or three mortar squads at the company level.

With regards ammunition I think two coy level tubes equipped with PGMM would be of greater benefit than 6 (especially given the phenomenal RoF a single mortar can produce- 20 rds/min IIRC)in all but FPF missions requiring copious (why does that word always sound rude to me?) amounts of ammunition and where more tubes would definitely be a plus in terms of frontage as well as volume though I often think frontages and areas are merely ways of ensuring destruction (suppression is a different issue) in the absence of precision capabilities hence the emphasis on PGMM ( just look at Excalibur or GMLRS, but OTOH in a major war with diminished/degraded GPS they may be redundant, in fact, come to think of it, I’m sure I read that a man-portable RF jamming kit was in development somewhere). Don’t think DPICM munitions for 60mm would be feasible. But then again the eight 120mm and six 155mm tubes at Bn should pick up the slack. One also might need greater volume of fire in the defence or the assault which is why I added HE projectors and MPMS (essentially advanced RPGs) which can be better co-ordinated at section/plt level. But I think those with actual experience would be best placed to answer that issue (I don’t know what I’m talking about at the best of times and, thanks to my health, never got the opportunity to get any... experience that is... militarily speaking...oh dear)

As an aside I wasn’t advocating “snap training” per se merely suggesting that there may be arguments in favour of it which, as always, Ken White has explained as no else can. In fact, WILF’s platoon groups idea tacitly presupposes such an arrangement anyway from what I can surmise.
Got a feeling I’m rambling now so I’ll end it there.