I ♥ mortars (from: Combat Support Company?)

[boondocksaint]

Uberbump ProPatria, spent 7ish years in mortars.

Only had a 60mm last tour, but I put it to use as often as I could. About halfway down the page.

http://www.beloblog.com/KGW_Blogs/afghanistan/2006/08/

 

[ProPatria Mike]

Watch out where the huskies go and don't you eat that yellow snow....

 

[Celtic Kilty]

Nice thread.

I wonder why we never mounted the 81's in the tracks ???

 

[vonGarvin]

Nice thread.

I wonder why we never mounted the 81's in the tracks ???

Not sure, exactly, but they were mounted in the Bison APC with a system similar, I believe, to that employed by the Brits in their FFV series of APC.

 

[ProPatria Mike]

Nice thread.

I wonder why we never mounted the 81's in the tracks ???

Suspension issues and a lack of cash to upgrade. 

 

[2 Cdo]

As a former Fire Controller, I can tell you the difference betweent the FOO's and the MFC's and why, I believe, it is essential that the bns maintain their own capabilities.

The hatbadge.

Mortarmen are all to aware that their responsibility lies to the battalion and our brothers in arms wherein the guns are used by anybody in theatre and targets are decided on by task force priorioties instead of battalion needs.

Well here's one thing I can agree with you about. ;D   Taking mortars (and pioneers) away from the battalions was a HUGE mistake and a great loss of immediate and intimate fire support. Nothing against the guns but there are times when having your own indirect fire support under the same hatbadge just feels better.

 

[RHFC_piper]

I gotta say, after seeing them in action, why did they take these away from the infantry? They look like so much fun.

 

[vonGarvin]

Because they ARE fun, that's why, piper

(just kidding)


In my opinion, the problem with gunners having mortars is we lose the "both/and" and instead have "either/or", as in before you got 81s AND 155 on the objective, now it's one OR the other.  Shame.

 

[Petard]

I'm not disagreeing with the idea the mortars should be back in the Inf Bn's, but for a number or reasons it would be a bad idea to take them away from the Artillery. What I'm getting at is the mortars should be both in the Bty and in the Bn.

BTW on Ops, the guns have had to do both 155 and 81 missions simulatenosily, in support of Ops in some cases, in defence of the gun postion in others.

 

[Old Sweat]

Petard,

Can you enlighten us about the "defence of the gun position?"

 

[Petard]

What I mean by "in defence of the gun position" is that instead of in reponse to a call for fire from a supported arm, the fire was directed from the gun position at some threat.

checking your profile Old Sweat I guess what you're after is did the 81's get used in defence of their gun postion, the answer is yes. Incidently the M777 was used in a direct fire role too (but in that case was somewhat of a show of force, kind of)

 

[Old Sweat]

Thanks, Master Gunner,

English can be a very vague language, which is why politicians prosper, I guess. Were there occasons when gun positions can under ground attack? Second, I wonder if guns and morarts were fired from the same areas, given the very different ranges and trajectories?

Ubique

A very superannuated ex-CIG

 

[Petard]

I know of only two specific incidents, there may be more, but not positive.
One was with the 81's at a target at just under a 1000 metres. The gun engaged a target that was a lot closer.
I'm not sure how much Op sec I'm skating around, so not trying to be cute, but I better leave it at that and shaddup. Besides, I wasn't there and I'm going by what people that were there are telling me. Best leave them to explain it at some point.

By any chance were you the BC of J Bty in the early 80's?

 

[ArmyRick]

As a mortarman I say mortars rock! they belong in the infantry and big guns belong to the artillery. Now lets take back some of the old ways that were usefull.......

 

[Old Sweat]

Petard,

PM Shot, over.

 

[vonGarvin]

Petard,

PM Shot, over.

Shot, send Time of Flight and PE, over


Sorry, it's just been a while for me to say stuff like that

 

[Petard]

Shot out
Not sure if it'll be rounds complete though, it seems I've muddied the waters a bit here (although not for old sweat) and people might be misunderstanding what I'm saying

IMO the Infantry Battalions should have their mortar platoons back because it adds to the firepower available, and the level of control is closer to the Battalion, whereas the level of control of the Artillery (with mortars or not) is still higher and may not always be tasked to the Battalion. Because of the way the Bty is structured now it reduces the chances where, as Van G had put it,  there's a case of one or the other, but it is possible for this to occur. The premise being the gunners cannot be in two places at the same time, for example one manoeuvre element dismounted and in terrain where mortars would be more ideally suited, and another manoeuvre element spread out in terrain where the range of the 155 is better suited. Right now it is possible for the Bty to split one troop off with mortars to support the first manoeuvre element, but it might not be able to react fast enough to do this, or formation level command might not give the authority to send that troop (Mortar Group for the infanteers) away. In any case the splitting of a troop away like that dilutes the firepower available.

The Artillery, IMO, should not give up their mortars just yet. It has happened where the guns have been engaging a target for a supported arm with 155, and at the same time need the mortars to enage a different target, from the same location.

This is why I'm saying the Infantry need their mortar platoon back but the guns should be keeping theirs too for situations such as I've mentioned here, in addition to local defence purposes mentioned in the earlier posts.

Verify rounds complete?

 

[Kirkhill]

I find it interesting that the Arty has demonstrated to its own satisfaction the need for mortars for local defence of what amounts to an isolated Platoon or Company FOL while the Army/CF has denied that capability to the infantry that also appears to be operating in non-mutually supporting FOLs.

I can see that you "get " that Petard, probably as do all the combat arms members of this board.  If the Arty are to keep the mortars then surely they need the manpower to be able to detach a Troop/Group or Section/Det to accompany a FOO to the FOL. (FOL-a-LOL-a-LOL-a-LOL......Don't you just love acronyms?  Merry Christmas).

 

[Old Sweat]

And to fuzzify the situation, I must point out that under the present system, a battle group can be supported by eight mortars or four guns or four mortars and two guns, so it is very much a case of either/or. To my mind, and I suspect the minds of most of us here, the best solution would be to return the mortars to the infantry, thus providing eight mortars and four guns to support the battle group.

To make another obvious point, what we used to call counter battery can be provided by air attacks, indirect fire means or by attack by ground forces. If what I am inferring is correct, the current enemy only has the capability for limited indirect fire and for ground attack using dismounted forces. Therefore there is a need to bring these people under fire before they can neutralize the gun position with aimed direct fire or by overrunning it. Mortars would be extremely effective in this role.

However, while I am sympathetic, the first priority must be to take the battle to the enemy, and that means using the mortars to support the manoeuver element as a first priority. (My thinking would probably change if I was on a gun position faced with ground attack.) That does not mean that part of the local defence of a gun or baseplate position can not include DFs to be fired by other guns and/or mortars.

 

[Petard]

I find it interesting that the Arty has demonstrated to its own satisfaction the need for mortars for local defence of what amounts to an isolated Platoon or Company FOL while the Army/CF has denied that capability to the infantry that also appears to be operating in non-mutually supporting FOLs.

True, but most of the infantry deployed have LAV III's (with its 25 mm and low light sense capabilities) available, whereas the troop of guns, with fewer people than a Coy or even a Pl in most cases, have Bison's.

I think there's enough mortars go 'round, is there enough infantry to man them? BTW I'm not implying that the Artillery should man those too, there are advantages to having the mortar Pl manned by infanteers within the Bn besides having it under Bn level control, I'm just wondering aloud is it do-able in the near term to have the Bn's each stand up a mortar Pl themselves?