Netfires - Tube Artillery - MLRS

[Fuchs]

Your search should've turned up the British Merlin (81mm)...

Yes, on the 10th page.

I get an automatic redirect to google.de.
(I enter the search at .com and get a result page like this:
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=...le-Suche&meta= )
Maybe their databases differ slightly.

Again; there's not only America.

[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.

[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

[William F. Owen]

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.

Well thanks to some goading by the member of this board, I have been working on some unit level concepts, and mortars keep in surprising me. I am not sure I share the idea of supporting neighbouring units, as that does produce several C2 problems, though not impossible.

If you match the capabilities of your mortar platoon with an STA platoon you do seem to fall into a very interesting "virtuous cycle."

[Fuchs]

I've got a concept in mind - technologies/concepts creep inside the armed services from big/heavy/expensive to compact/light/cheap and become useful to more and more units and lower levels of hierarchy.

The first use of an innovation is often clumsy and expensive and found in navy ships (think about AEGIS, for example) or stationary installations, followed by a still expensive but not so bulky anymore application in combat aircraft (think about the early days of radar). Next are often AFVs/artillery and then it trickles down to infantry when the tech is really cheap, light and compact.

The C2 challenge that you wrote about is no perfect example, but almost fits this pattern. Divisional artillery of whole corps was assembled to support single divisional attacks or Großkämpfe (essentially major battles) in WW2 (or earlier).
Artillery coordinators on corps level or higher coordinated that with their small staff's preparation (Arko, for example).

Divisional artillery was not meant to support neighbor divisions, but it did so - and the procedures for it were the hierarchical procedures of that time.
This can and should be done much lower in the hierarchy today - like on battalion/company level or (with some quite uncommon indirect fire armament) on platoon level.
Modern communication technology coupled with modern indirect fire control (which is quite automated) could be used to coordinate such horizontal supporting fires.
Wilf, maybe you've read a version of my skirmisher text that already had that feature. It's really mostly a matter of communication and good prioritization.

It would be wasteful to let one battalion/regiment fight its own fight when a neighbor unit has some support assets that could help but aren't prepared/ordered to do so.
The 'organic fire support' thinking should be replaced with a 'horizontal fire support' thinking.

Maybe that happens, and maybe the natural consequence would be an increase in range till we see integrated regiment-sized combat teams with their own SPH battery instead of heavy mortars.
That is btw something that resembles a concept of the 50's.


Classic artillery - separate from the direct fire forces - will remain necessary because we can't be sure about the survivability of forward indirect fire assets.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf, maybe you've read a version of my skirmisher text that already had that feature. It's really mostly a matter of communication and good prioritization.

No not read it. Fire it across!

I agree about communication and priorities. It is doable and perhaps even desirable, but I'd only want to look at this once I start work on Formation Levels of organisation and I see myself stuck on units for some time yet.

[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'.

[GMLRS]

# Role for MLRS++: massed technical targets, area targets, salvo assault, long range
Comments?

I'm afraid we are long since removed from the duck hunter role. Our biggest delay in response time is AC, and besides being deadly accurate, who has a lower CDE in DoD?

[kaur]

IAI is developing his own "rockets in a box" version. Take a look at journal's page nr 8.

http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416099555

[William F. Owen]

GPS and Laser Guidance is now down to all most any ammunition below 70mm.
I had some good discussions as to the implications when I was at the IDF's Land Warfare Conference. The technology is there, but the thinking, as in implications has to be kept somewhat in check. 120 and 81mm Iron bombs still have great utility!