Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more

[Gunner]

Fallujah, Najaf, Ramadi, a host of funny-named vallys and ridges in Afghanistan....I'd hate to see an Infantry unit scrambling for intimate indirect support while the Artillery is too busy playing with UAV's and 4 155mm howitzers to take a simple mortar off of the shelf.

You are confusing a traditional battalion structure with our current task force construct.  If the mission calls for mortars and heavy artillery, the artillery will provide both if required.

 

[CommonSenseNCO]

While A Bty currently deployed is using the M777 a lot. I have heard, and seen some pretty cool pics, of the guys out training with their mortars near Tarnak Farms. It's not so difficult to be mortars one day, guns the next and mortars the day after. A HL has a lot of room for kit.
When employed as a mortar platoon or troop, the boys are much more contrtolled by the infantry commander and we really work very closely together. Close enough to hear them complaining about how heavy the ammo is ....

 

[3rd Horseman]

It's not so difficult to be mortars one day, guns the next and mortars the day after. A HL has a lot of room for kit.

I am sure knowing the gunners I have that you can do that....but the issue is how well....to survive and shot well on the battlefield is what counts to re role from kit to kit mid mission will reduce capability enough to kill you and the supported call sign. Better IMHO to select a Bty to conduct a function and let them be the experts at it.

 

[Mountie]

What happens when both are needed at the same time.  Guns are 20 km in the rear supporting the infantry battalion and then suddenly a threat emerges that requires mortars.  The gun battery can't instantly change to a mortar troop and race forward.  Or perhaps the guns are engage with longer range targets and the infantry need mortars in close to engage other targets.  Enough of this, give the mortars back to the infantry.

 

[vonGarvin]

What happens when both are needed at the same time.  Guns are 20 km in the rear supporting the infantry battalion and then suddenly a threat emerges that requires mortars.  The gun battery can't instantly change to a mortar troop and race forward.  Or perhaps the guns are engage with longer range targets and the infantry need mortars in close to engage other targets.  Enough of this, give the mortars back to the infantry.

They could give it back to the infantry, and yes, I would love that, or they could increase the PYs for the Artillery so that they could man both simultaneously (and at the same time, I may add )  And it's more than just the tubes to be manned: the mortar platoons of old had 54 (or so) all ranks, which included two groups of four mortars, two MFC parties, the echelon and, perhaps most importantly, the battalion  battlegroup   battaliongroup  task force FSCC.  Remember that the FSCC did more than process calls for fire: it CO-ORDINATED fires from all sources.  As far as I understand it, given the shortage of PYs in the Arty, combined with ever increasing tasks (TF HQ FSCCs, UAVs, etc etc), it is becoming ever increasingly difficult to man all.  So, two options (I'll throw in a third "throw away" option as per):
1:  Give the arty enough PYs to man their positions
2:  Give the mortars back to the infantry
3:  Have naval gunners take over the UAV task (remember, this is the throw away third option, so please disregard)

Regards!

Hauptmann

 

[Mortar guy]

100% behind you vonGarvin! Why they gave an infantry weapon to the artillery will forever confuse me. What's next? Only qualified engineers can operate our picks and shovels? Assault boats will have to be crewed by navy coxswains?

Vruh

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

...pssst,shhh, keep it down, will ya..

though the picks and shovel thing.......

 

[vonGarvin]

Picks and shovels to the Engineers?  LOVE IT  ;D
One reason why pioneers and mortars went their merry ways:
$

 

[Mortar guy]

Yup, money and the ethnic vote. No wait, that was the last referendum....  :-\

Seriously though, we were our own worst enemies. The dillettantism and amateurism in our army directly contributed to the loss of mortars, pioneers and now anti-armour platoons in the inf bns. Because so few people understand why these platoons were useful or even why mortars, pioneers and anti-armour are different from artillery, engineers or the armoured corps, we let these capabilities go with barely a fight. It always stuns me when someone who is supposedly a 'professional' will say things like "Pioneers and engineers do the same thing, right?" or "Why does a bn need support platoons anyway?" If you don't know the answers to those questions, its time for a little remedial training!  [/rant]

MG

 

[Journeyman]

Only qualified engineers can operate our picks and shovels?

Well, the Pioneers went with the Mortars. Yet, the thumperheads are so stretched that the latest A'stan roto took clearance divers to help with the EOD tasks. But that's a separate thread.

Give us back the mortars......and pioneers.....and TOW.....

 

[Mountie]

Here is another option for you?  I've discussed it on the thread "Whither the Artillery" so I won't go into great detail.  Arm the artillery with a heavy 120mm mortar, such as the self-propelled Armoured Mortar System on the LAV-III.  The 120mm mortar has greater lethality then a 105mm howitzer, precision ammunition exsists and is being further developed, and it has a range of 10,000m.  Four batteries of eight mortars (a battery per Task Force) or three mortar batteries and a M777 155mm battery.

Battery Headquarters
-Tactical Headquarters (BC attached to TF/BG HQ)
-TF/BG FSCC (BK/Fire Effects Synchronization Officer)
-Echelon
3 x Fire Effects Detachments (FOO/FAC Party)
2 x Mortar Troops (4 x LAV-III 120mm AMS and 2 x MSVS ammo vehicles each)

For light infantry options there is a towed 120mm mortar.  It has slightly less range however.

 

[vonGarvin]

Here is another option for you?  I've discussed it on the thread "Whither the Artillery" so I won't go into great detail.  Arm the artillery with a heavy 120mm mortar, such as the self-propelled Armoured Mortar System on the LAV-III.  The 120mm mortar has greater lethality then a 105mm howitzer, precision ammunition exsists and is being further developed, and it has a range of 10,000m.  Four batteries of eight mortars (a battery per Task Force) or three mortar batteries and a M777 155mm battery.

Battery Headquarters
-Tactical Headquarters (BC attached to TF/BG HQ)
-TF/BG FSCC (BK/Fire Effects Synchronization Officer)
-Echelon
3 x Fire Effects Detachments (FOO/FAC Party)
2 x Mortar Troops (4 x LAV-III 120mm AMS and 2 x MSVS ammo vehicles each)

For light infantry options there is a towed 120mm mortar.  It has slightly less range however.

Only effect would be the procurement process, so we would see this in what, five or more years?  That notwithstanding (or barring a miracle COT purchase on the order of the M777), the only disadvantage to the 120 for light efforts would be the lighter ammo load you can bring to the fight. (vs 81mm).  But, imagine the arty having 120mm as above, and the inf having the 81's at the coy level.  Or, just go back to the way it was (Tac HQ *was* the BG/TF FSCC, and a place for the BC to hang his hat)
Nice *real* third option (as opposed to my "naval gunners" option from before)  ;D

 

[warrickdll]

Odd, you would expect mortars to be there.

A WW2 Royal Artilley Methods site http://www.hypospace.net/equipment/methods/maindoc.htm

...
In late 1944 anti-tank regiments in Burma became dual equipped, every anti-tank detachment had a 3-in mortar. Australian tank attack regiments received both mortars and 75-mm howitzers. Given the Japanese lack of tanks all this was a sensible use of resources.  However, the same thing was sometimes done in Italy from early 1944 using 4.2-inch mortars, most notably by the Polish Corps at Monte Cassino and in other cases anti-tank batteries were effectively converted to 4.2-inch mortar batteries.  In that theatre divisional commanders had 4.2-inch mortars available for issue as required.
...
The were occasions, particularly in Italy, when LAA batteries temporarily operated mortars.
...

Anti-Tank troops would probably not be the way to go, but a dual Anti-Air/mortar troop?!

Having dual howitzer/mortar units (or howitzer units that may be switched to mortars) might not be a useful idea if the guns are required. If indirect fire is required, then might there not also be a coinciding mortar requirement?

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

Maybee Im missing something but the "Gun" Batteries arn't all co located at one grid. The concept of having a designated mortar battery (or two) and the other batteries with M777's, would mean only the cap badge on the mortar line is different.

Weather its PPCLI or RCHA manning the tubes, essentially nothing changes except the fact it now becomes easier for commanders to coordinate all indirect fire more easilly.

When the 81's belonged to the infantry, the mortar troop's ran nearly identical to the way the Arty run their mortars. How do I know? I did my mortar course with PPCLI and deployed to bosnia with the Artillery mortar troop.

 

[Mountie]

I don't think anyone is arguing there is a difference between and infantry mortar platoon and an artillery mortar troop/battery.  What is being argued is that both a gun battery and a mortar battery/platoon are needed within a TF/BG at the same time.  I am currently re-reading the book "The March Up" about the 1st US Marine Divisions operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Infantry battalions often requested supporting fire from both their 81mm mortar platoon and their supporting 155mm towed artillery at the same time.  Canadian units cannot do this when the same battery hold both the guns and mortars. 

 

[Mountie]

It actually makes a lot of sense to have mortars manned by the gunners.  But put the mortar platoon back into the infantry battalion and man it with gunners.  Same thing with the Pioneers if you want.  Man them with engineers but put them back into the infantry battalion.  The assault engineer platoon would provide the infantry with immediate close support while the field engineer squadron conducted other engineering tasks not directly related to close support of the infantry battalion (camp construction, road building, EOD, etc).  Give the anti-armour platoons back to the infantry as well and you have a combined arms infantry battalion ready to go without a lot of add ons.

 

[Kirkhill]

Tell you what Mountie, why wouldn't you do exactly as you suggest but call it a Task Force?  You could even permanently assign the different hat badges, station them in one location, have them train and live together and possibly even give them a common shoulder patch.

 

[Journeyman]

....and possibly even give them a common shoulder patch.

T-shirts. It's all about the t-shirts. Lots of daggers and skulls and stuff 

 

[Mountie]

That is exactly what I suggested months ago on the thread "Diffusion of Combined Arms" or something like that.  My suggestion was for a combined arms battle group / task force permanently organized as such.  I suggested numbering the BG/TF and give them their own patch.  Basically the brigade's can take on the history/tradition of former divisions and the BG/TF can take on former brigade history/tradition to maintain the former units fought in the world wars.  Within each combined arms task force there would be individual sub-units of various regiments/corps.  Such as:

1 CMBG (1,2 & 3 CATFs)
2 CMBG (4,5 & 6 CATFs)
5 CMBG (7,8 & 9 CATFs)

1st Combined Arms Task Force
-Task Force Headquarters (non corps specific)
-A, B & C Companies, PPCLI
-A Squadron, LdSH (2 x MGS Troop & 1 x TUA Troop)
-11 Field Engineer Squadron (Assault Engineer Troop & Close Support Engineer Troop)
-A Battery, RCHA (mortar battery organized as in previous post)
-1 Service Company (signal, admin, quartermaster, transport, maintenance and medical platoons, plus chaplain and MP sections)

A brigade level there would be:
-General Support Task Force with supply, transport and maintenance companies, plus an engineer support squadron.
-Command Support Task Force with signal, military intelligence and armoured reconnaissance squadrons, plus artillery target acquisition battery/troop and a military police platoon.
-Field Ambulance organized like a USMC surgical company as a 60-bed forward surgical hospital.

 

[horsegunner353]

It actually makes a lot of sense to have mortars manned by the gunners.  But put the mortar platoon back into the infantry battalion and man it with gunners. 

This doesn't solve the problem that drove the army to task the artillery with mortars.  The available PYs didn't increase, they decreased.  By giving the task to the artillery, at least the army kept the skill "in house" by double hatting the gunners.  If you post them to an infantry battalion, then you lose the gun battery from the ORBAT.

The Americans tried permanently embedding things like FOO parties etc into the supported arm organization and found it didn't work.  They became the Queen of RSM's detail and tended to do anything but their combat job.  In addition, they were unable maintain skills associated with lower-level Battle Task Standards.