Bunker and tank busters at section/squad and platoon level

[Fuchs]

Isn't 120 mm mortar too much for dismounted infantry in mountains?

60 and 80mm may have insufficient range/ceiling to meet the requirements for mountain (not hill) warfare.


The German army uses exclusively 120mm and that's enough in my opinion. 60mm mortars with aimed indirect fire capability (= with bipod, not commando mortars) are already very heavy and the ammunition is very heavy as well. That limits the potential in mobile dismounted actions much.

It's often better to have two teams of 120mm mortars leap-frogging and providing continuous support from somewhere where they can still use small vehicles to carry the hardware.


I have never understood why some people like the idea of a 60 or 81mm mortar in an infantry company. That sounds about as smart to me as telling the Coy to carry barbed wire and filled sandbags ready to use into action.

[baboon6]

6


I have never understood why some people like the idea of a 60 or 81mm mortar in an infantry company. That sounds about as smart to me as telling the Coy to carry barbed wire and filled sandbags ready to use into action.

Well, a lot of armies have mortars at the platoon or company level, mainly 60mm, either commando or bipod/tripod-mounted, though most of the latter can be used in the handheld mode too. They include the US, British (who are replacing their 51s with 60s), Danish (who recently reintroduced 60mm mortars after getting rid of them for a while), South African, Canadian (though their 60s might go and their 81s are already part of the artillery), and at least some units of the Italian army. The US, Canada, Britain and Denmark have all used them recently in Afghanistan. So they can't be that useless. I suppose different armies just have different ways of doing things.

[Ken White]

... So they can't be that useless. I suppose different armies just have different ways of doing things.

METT-TC. Combination of experience factors and who got fought where; the British, french Russian and US have fought over far more diverse terrain and have used far greater separation between units than some others.

[William F. Owen]

Well, a lot of armies have mortars at the platoon or company level, mainly 60mm, either commando or bipod/tripod-mounted, though most of the latter can be used in the handheld mode too.

Very, true, because Kg of kg they are the most efficient HE Projectors you can find. - they are also highly effective. The UK had the 2inch/51mm for nearly 70 years. Excellent weapon, if correctly used in a sensible way. The hand-held 60mm should provide much the same capability.

....all dear to my heart as i did several presentations in 2003-4 telling folk that getting rid of the 51mm was madness, and got told I was wrong. In 2006, they bring in the 60mm!!! - for exactly the reasons I said the 51mm should stay!

[jcustis]

60mm mortars with aimed indirect fire capability (= with bipod, not commando mortars) are already very heavy and the ammunition is very heavy as well. That limits the potential in mobile dismounted actions much.

I don't think it does limit the potential at all, at least not if you know what you're doing and can plan effectively. That's like saying that the ability to only move at 3.5 mph limits mobility...it's a big "no duh!", but it has to be applied in context.

There is no reason why a dismounted force cannot move with 60mm mortars and an effective load of ammo spread throughout the platoons. It takes training and a certain degree of intestidunal fortitude, but it isn't making water we are talking about.

It's often better to have two teams of 120mm mortars leap-frogging and providing continuous support from somewhere where they can still use small vehicles

Let's take an Op Khanjar scenario. Wheeled assets require routes to move on...routes can be susceptible to IEDs, so for the purpose of conducting a strike mission, a heliborne force avoids those routes during the initial push(es). In that scenario, ownership of a 120mm based on a wheeled platform could be considered a mobility penalty as well. It's all in the context.

Then again, we were talking about rockets, weren't we?

[Fuchs]

I don't think it does limit the potential at all, at least not if you know what you're doing and can plan effectively. That's like saying that the ability to only move at 3.5 mph limits mobility...it's a big "no duh!", but it has to be applied in context.

There is no reason why a dismounted force cannot move with 60mm mortars and an effective load of ammo spread throughout the platoons. It takes training and a certain degree of intestidunal fortitude, but it isn't making water we are talking about.

"spread throughout the platoons".

There's one problem; platoons should not move close to each other. They themselves should march apart. Any ammo supply for a company mortar that's based on "the platoon" is quite impractical or it implies a very suboptimal movement.
A company that marches together can be fixed as one, while a company that's marching separated may have one platoon fixed, but the others would often retain their ability to move.

In short: A company mortar section should have its ammo spread in no more than a platoon equivalent. This means 3-7 kg extra weight for several dozen men.


Next the old question; why have an organic mortar when the battalion can support you with 120mm mortars over 7-13 km?

The answer can be unreliable comm (no line of sight in mountains, for example) and in the idea of the platoon/company mortar as a quickly available line of sight (direct) fire weapon.
That doesn't fit well with bipod mortars (60 and 81mm). 60mm commando mortars - okay, if the gunner is well-trained. Bipod mortars - not much different than 120mm Bn mortars; just smaller, less powerful and firing at shorter distances.

Keep in mind the availability issue as well.
You've probably not set up your bipod 60mm mortar and its crew is marching with the company. This means a slow reaction to calls for fire because they need to set up the mortar first. They may also become suppressed.

The alternative is to have it set up. Well, now you're either forced to wait at times till they caught up and set up their mortar in a new position before you can resume your march or you're back to often not having it ready while advancing.
The alternative is to use two or more mortar teams leap-frogging. This multiplies the necessary amount of mortars and mortar teams. Still, they're only moving 1/2 or 2/3 or 3/4 of the time that the infantry can move (2, 3 or 4 mortars per Coy). This still slows the Coy down (not that much, but significantly).
The mortar team in its rear firing position would also need to pull security for itself (=needs more than just carbines) and to carry the mortar and the ready ammunition. That requires a rather large section for a single 60mm mortar.

In the end, you need a mortar platoon at Coy level, every Coy in the Bn (3x or 4x) to match the firepower available from a Bn-level mortar Plt. On top of that your mortar-laden infantry Coy is still slowed down and unable to use its bipod mortars inside a forest or on a steep slope.


Even a single company action, far separated from other Bn units, could benefit more from a temporary 120mm mortar firing base in a quite remote location than from carrying its own 60mm NLOS mortars.

An incompetent, weak enemy can of course conceal most problems of yours.



Things are all very different with commando mortars; the bipod-less variety. They can be considered to be a Plt-level weapon just as a heavy sniper rifle or a tripod machine gun. They're line-of-sight weapons that are as quickly set up as the other Plt weapons and their weight is close to that of a loaded 7.62mm rifle.
I'm not sure that they're necessary, though. Infantry should be used on closed terrain that makes commando mortars unnecessary if not useless (at least in regard to HE).



In short: Keep heavy stuff away from the infantry Plt and Coy if you can substitute for it at the Bn level. Mortar and especially mortar ammunition = heavy.

[William F. Owen]

"spread throughout the platoons".

For platoon mortars the mortar team really has to carry the first line load. The biggest problem we had man-packing 81mm bombs was moving each company through the base plate location, and then cycling them back to pick up unused rounds.

Next the old question; why have an organic mortar when the battalion can support you with 120mm mortars over 7-13 km?

because you may be detached away from the battalion or battle group, and they may not be able to cross attach a mortar section to you - but I have to concur, I do not really see why you need BN and COY mortar sections. The ability to attach BN mortars to COY or group COY under BN control seems to me to offer the best of both worlds.

The alternative is to use two or more mortar teams leap-frogging. This multiplies the necessary amount of mortars and mortar teams.

We, (UK) always tried to moved with at least 2 tubes covering. - and again, that's where man-packing the bombs creates problems. It can be done. We did it, but it was always problematic

I'm not sure that they're necessary, though. Infantry should be used on closed terrain that makes commando mortars unnecessary if not useless (at least in regard to HE).

Hand-helds work well in jungle and have a good record for doing so - and infantry do not get to choose where they have to go.

I agree with not making the infantry mini-all arms teams, but you need more than just rifles and MGs.

[Firn]

Then again, we were talking about rockets, weren't we?

Yes, but it mortars are part of the firepower and weight context. When spreading mortar rounds you have to cut back on BB or AT rounds.

Let's take an Op Khanjar scenario. Wheeled assets require routes to move on...routes can be susceptible to IEDs, so for the purpose of conducting a strike mission, a heliborne force avoids those routes during the initial push(es). In that scenario, ownership of a 120mm based on a wheeled platform could be considered a mobility penalty as well. It's all in the context.

Agreed.

I don't think it does limit the potential at all, at least not if you know what you're doing and can plan effectively. That's like saying that the ability to only move at 3.5 mph limits mobility...it's a big "no duh!", but it has to be applied in context.

It depends, as said before, on context and METT-TC. If, and a big if the (mounted) heavy 120 mm mortars of the battalion can support you both effectively, due to good training and coordination and efficiently, due to the efficient supply and great accurate big bang from the sky, than it might be a better idea to go lighter or to carry something else.

Considering the points raised by Fuchs the 120 mm mortar, both self-propelled, inserted or drawn can be a very attractive choice. I'm also firmly convinced that "It's often better to have two teams of 120mm mortars leap-frogging and providing continuous support from somewhere where they can still use small vehicles to carry the hardware."

Still there are time and places where the company or even the platoon might have to work outside the umbrella offered by the battalion's mortars. A "true" 81mm or 60 mm mortar transported in by a vehicle and operated by a skilled crew should do great. Especially a 60 mm could fit well into most vehicles and helicopters and is IMHO the most you can sensibly support over difficult terrain and long distances from your back.

METT-TC. Right tool for the job. At 29 Palms, rocky desert, range estimation is difficult for several reasons and thus the LRF and such are beneficial as are they in mountains or on open plains but they aren't necessary in urban, heavily wooded or jungle environments.

Range estimation is not difficult, it just is poorly and rarely trained. Once trained it must be practiced and that isn't done either because most units spend too much time in garrison and not enough in training; the cop out for saving that money because filed training is expensive is to spend more money buying technological substitutes for competent training.

I think that both training and LRF are complementary. The closer the range, the swifter the projectile and the richer the environment, the easier it is to train people to guess and hit correctely. On the other hand the longer the range, the slower the projectile and the plainer the terrain the greater the benefit of the LRF.


Firn

[kaur]

Wilf said:

In 2006, they bring in the 60mm!!!

Mystery Ranch’s new pack: Go ahead, Overload it

Here’s the man himself to explain his creation. There are few photos below showing the rig hauling some Marine Corps mortar tubes and base plates.

http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gears...d-overload-it/

Wilf, don't you know if IMI is intending to make this kind of launchers for Lahat missile? This missile is 3x cheaper than Javelin, but gives with it's NLOS capacity for some units in some METT situations really good opportunities.

[William F. Owen]

Mystery Ranch’s new pack: Go ahead, Overload it

The UK has the C6-210 hand-held.

Wilf, don't you know if IMI is intending to make this kind of launchers for Lahat missile? This missile is 3x cheaper than Javelin, but gives with it's NLOS capacity for some units in some METT situations really good opportunities.

LAHAT can be launched from very light vehicles, but I've never seen a ground launcher. Not a technical challenge, I'm sure.

[baboon6]

The UK has the C6-210 hand-held.


LAHAT can be launched from very light vehicles, but I've never seen a ground launcher. Not a technical challenge, I'm sure.

They also have the M6-895 as an alternative to the 81 for battalion mortar platoons.

[SethB]

Being able to range either by making an educated guess or milling the target is great, but the accuracy required makes an LRF a very good thing to have.

The following is from Zak Smith of Demigod LLC:

Knowing the range of the target is critical to making long-range hits. Between 500 and 1000 yards, the best .308 Winchester loads are dropping at one inch every four yards forward travel, up to one inch every yard forward travel. For example, at 700 yards, it drops at about 1/2" per yard. If a target is 16" in diameter (a pretty large target) and the shooter aims at the center, he has 8" of vertical error margin.

This margin is used up by rifle and shooter accuracy, accuracy of "data book" drop values compared to current real conditions and load, and ranging error. If we look only at ranging error, that 8" of error margin translates into 16 yards. In other words, the estimated range which is used to look up the drop value, must be within plus or minus 16 yards of the real value. If his range estimate is 25 yards short, the bullet will be 12.5" low, and it will miss the target.

Obviously he is discussing small arms and not crew serveds/rockets/grenades, but the principles of trajectory stand.

[jcustis]

Next the old question; why have an organic mortar when the battalion can support you with 120mm mortars over 7-13 km?

I think that's a bit like saying we shouldn't have 120s because 155mm artillery can do the job, and can do it farther.

If we are to presume that platoons are going to be dispersed, and then that companies are going to be dispersed, then by advocating a consolidation of fires to the battalion level, we also restrict the timeliness of fire support in turn, because the company commander has to potentially compete with at least 3-5 other maneuver elements for HE fires when he might be able to resolve the situation with his organic support.

Add to this the factor of deconflicting gun-target lines from a distant fire support agency, when rotary-wing or fixed-wing CAS is being called in, and the 60mm mortar may be just the ticket to establish suppression and marking.

As for the concern about getting at 81mm or smaller mortar into action, the standard for the gunner to get one mounted is 90 seconds or less. It can take about that same length of time for the FDC to completely process the call-for-fire from the FO, so I don't see where timeliness is at all an issue since we trained to a standard and meet it routinely.

If I follow the argument correctly, it seems as though the weight of HE fires from a 60mm section are deemed to be not worth the trouble, but I would have to totally disagree. I recognize the 120s bring a big punch, and would not disagree that they are a substantial enabler, but they can't be taken at face value when so many employment considerations are at issue.

[Firn]

Very, true, because Kg of kg they are the most efficient HE Projectors you can find. - they are also highly effective. The UK had the 2inch/51mm for nearly 70 years. Excellent weapon, if correctly used in a sensible way. The hand-held 60mm should provide much the same capability.

....all dear to my heart as i did several presentations in 2003-4 telling folk that getting rid of the 51mm was madness, and got told I was wrong. In 2006, they bring in the 60mm!!! - for exactly the reasons I said the 51mm should stay!

A company that marches together can be fixed as one, while a company that's marching separated may have one platoon fixed, but the others would often retain their ability to move.

In short: A company mortar section should have its ammo spread in no more than a platoon equivalent. This means 3-7 kg extra weight for several dozen men.

There is no reason why a dismounted force cannot move with 60mm mortars and an effective load of ammo spread throughout the platoons. It takes training and a certain degree of intestidunal fortitude, but it isn't making water we are talking about.

The key quality of the 60 mm mortar is the ability to deliver responsive and effective indirect firesupport. It can also be a good stepping stone to get the breathing space and time to ease the employment of heavier assets. To have always two tubes covering the company you need three independent sections and enough bombs spread out over many nearby backs. Could this be achieved for dismounted infantry by having sections armed with commando mortars attached to rifle platoons or concentrated in the coy?

Another question regarding the original topic. I recently looked at the Hirtenberger c-mortar (M6-895) used by the British which is said to be able to deliver "direct" fire due to the trigger mechanism and, I suppose, an "arresting" device in the barrel, which keeps the bomb in place. Could it not be used to bust with direct fire and standard bombs and the right fuse setting light "bunkers"? The ammunition to do so is already transported and used. As I never fired a c-mortar I might be confused.


Firn

[Fuchs]

There's no need for an arresting device because it's never fired with depression.

A triggered firing pin is standard with all "Commando" mortars (bipod-less light mortars).

The greatest problem with low elevation firing is the recoil. You could do it if you have something to rest it against.

[Firn]

There's no need for an arresting device because it's never fired with depression.

A triggered firing pin is standard with all "Commando" mortars (bipod-less light mortars).

Yes, it might be an interesting, yet superfluous option.

The greatest problem with low elevation firing is the recoil. You could do it if you have something to rest it against.

The lowest possible charge will of course mitigate the problem with the recoil. Perhaps the military should issue a specially protected "c-mortar gunner direct-fire boot" for the guy putting his foot behind the mortar at those low elevations


Firn

[Fuchs]

A very low charge produces only a low V0. That requires a relatively high angle to reach beyond 40x46mm range.

And then again - why not simply fire in the upper elevation group ~(43-80°)?

40x46 shoots quite nicely through windows and Panzerfaust/Bazooka/RPG category weapons project explosives nicely at low elevation.