Doctrinal employment of mortars

[ross.browne]

I had a conversation the other day with someone regarding the doctrinal differences between the employment of truck-mobile mortars vs LAV-mobile mortars in a LAV battalion. Mobility and protection are obvious issues, but what say the group about the detail?

[Simon Tan]

A contemporary SP mortar platfrom is much faster into and out of action. The vehicle comes to a halt, the hatch is popped (if not a turreted solution) and you're ready for business. Indeed you can receive your fire mission while moving and perform a short halt, conduct the mission and displace. All inside of 2 minutes.

 

Unlike truck borne units, they don't need to unlimber/set up the tubes and the ammo and they don't need to limber/break down before displacing.

 

The No.1 problem that SP mortars face is usually running out of ammo. As battalion and company tubes, they are always the first to shoot and can be called in by just about anybody.

[Guest aevans]

A contemporary SP mortar platfrom is much faster into and out of action. The vehicle comes to a halt, the hatch is popped (if not a turreted solution) and you're ready for business. Indeed you can receive your fire mission while moving and perform a short halt, conduct the mission and displace. All inside of 2 minutes.

 

Unlike truck borne units, they don't need to unlimber/set up the tubes and the ammo and they don't need to limber/break down before displacing.

 

The No.1 problem that SP mortars face is usually running out of ammo.  As battalion and company tubes, they are always the first to shoot and can be called in by just about anybody.

260288[/snapback]

 

Only works if you're equipped with the right kind of position and direction finding gear. Otherwise, it's aiming stakes and hand signals.

[Simon Tan]

That's why I caveated it as a 'contemporary' platform. One that has the comms, position locating and FCS to do stuff on the fly. I'm pretty certain everyone who has the niufty stuff also trains to fight 'steam' in case their jubblywhatsits go tits up.

 

What the track brings to this is a power source, a rack to hold all the bits and not having to hump all the gear.

 

You could have a battery FDC set up in a Humvee/Landie pretty easily.

 

Simon

[Scott Cunningham]

Most mortar units are still aiming stakes and old school stuff. You can do a hip shoot in a few minutes, but its not an immediate thing.

 

Mortars are great because they belong to a unit. Higher HQ cant re-allocate them to other tasks. Arty and CAS are allocated based on the priorities of higher HQ. You can make no plan that depends on either because they may be pulled from you when they need it most. Not so for mortars. They are there when needed. While not as powerful as full blown arty, they are faster and more responsive.

 

I loved using mortars. I used to have BN CDR who didn't really employ them much. I asked to see if they could operate with my company. It eventually evolved into SOP that the mortar platoon was attached to my company all the time. We used the hell out of them, and they acted as one of our maneuver elements, moved in our formations, showed up at our OPORDs, slept in our TAA's, ate in our chow lines, etc.... We rarely had to bother the BN CDR for other fire support.

[EchoFiveMike]

Mounted mortars don't have problems of seating baseplates that dismount guns do. SP mortars without the FCS to rapid hipshoot are wasted effort. S/F.....Ken M

[Rubberneck]

The maneuver BN commander is going to be flush with mortars now that the "arms romm" concept is taking hold. He'll have 60, 81 and 120mm to use. A lot of firepower.

[Scott Cunningham]

Good thing, since 155mm Arty BN's are on the endangered species list.

 

We have a whole RSTA/ARS squadron to do "target aquisition" and long range fires, then pull all the long range fires. Go figure.

[Simon Tan]

Scott...the Bn must have had a FA battery directly attached for the Bn CO to not use his tubes. Bn and Co mortars are jealously guarded in most infantry organisations simply because they are the only tubes you can rely on.

 

It should be interesting to see how the Arms Room mortars are employed. I would imagine the 120s will be primarily used in FOBs while the 81s are used for deployed missions and the 60s used when having to manpack over long distances. I would also be very surprised if more people aren't cross trained as mortar men to enable them to work cascaded tubes in satellite FOBs etc.

 

Simon

[Junior FO]

I had a conversation the other day with someone regarding the doctrinal differences between the employment of truck-mobile mortars vs LAV-mobile mortars in a LAV battalion. Mobility and protection are obvious issues, but what say the group about the detail?

260247[/snapback]

 

Depends what role you want your LAV battalion to have. As soon as mortars are requiered to support maneuvering elements they must be self-propelled or else they won't be able to deliver fire in a timely fashion. Towed mortars have advantages but they can only effectivly support slow moving (infantry) or static units. IMO for Bosnia, Afghanistan or Irak towed mortars would have been very usefull.

 

I used to be a 12cm towed mortar crew member and now command a 12cm M113 mechanized mortar platoon. Sorry if I'm stating the obvious below:)

 

IMO towed mortars are ideal for LIC or PSO situations where the enemy has no counterbattery capability and the mortars are likely to be employed in a relativly static fashion(f.e. fire bases) where they are protected from direct fire. Once they are sighted in, their position can be relativly small and they don't require a lot of space for alternative fire positions so you can get 360° coverage. They deliver a lot of bang in a small package and they don't look threatening to civilians. Their logistical footprint is very low compared to the mechanized versions, especially with regards to fuel and maintenance support. Long road marches are not a problem. The crews tend to be much more infantry centric in mindset and training because they have to dismount constanty. Unlike the mechanized version where most of the crew never dismounts the towed mortar crews are not tied to their vehicles so you potentially have a large dismounted element that can be employed as another Inf platoon if needed for whatever reason. Although I have never done it but I would imagine that it would be easy to transport towed mortars by helicoptor if fire support is wanted in very difficult terrain. OTOH I guess it's easier for the US to use air in those cases.

 

IMO towed mortars are not well suited for high intensity MOBILE combat, mainly because they can't shoot and scoot very well. In a PREPARED position with ideal ground conditions (i.e. flat and no mud) a good crew can set up and be ready to fire in 2-3 min. From the word go they can be rolling out in 60 - 70 seconds. Do this a few times in a short timeframe and fatigue will slow things down. Bad terrain can easily double those times. To minimize the setup time during a fire mission towed mortars should only be used from prepared positions. During the setup, fire and packup phases (which typicly stretch to 15 min or so) your crews are out in the open with no protection at all and no quick way to get to safety if bad things start to happen. This is a concern because you are relativly close behind the position of the units you are supporting and there's always a significant chance of enemy recon and/or snipers being around. It only takes a few bursts of MG fire to shut you down and if the enemy doesn't obligingly come close to your position you can't do much about it.

 

Logistics aside the one big disadvantage of non turreted mortars (at least the M113 version) is field of fire. The mortar turntable can't be turned very far which considerably restricts the area you can cover from one firing position, especially at short ranges.

 

>>>That's why I caveated it as a 'contemporary' platform. One that has the comms, position locating and FCS to do stuff on the fly.<<<<

 

Since money is always tight and the arty guys have first call on that kind of stuff I don't think you will ever see those on most mortars. I also don't think that it would be cost effective for something less capable than the AMOS system.

[Simon Tan]

Battlefield Management Systems are by default also FDC systems. Mortars are probably the very top of the list for implementing this capability after command tracks IMO. The mortar as an organic asset is ideally suited to exploit these capabilities because the gunner only has to monitor the Bn footprint. They will still be faster on target than supporting arty.

 

You can run EVERYTHING off a PDA plugged into a networked radio IMO.

 

Simon

[Rubberneck]

Scott,

 

We are losing a lot of 155mm battalions, but they are all GS battalions. Every BCT is going to have a 155mm (105MM in the light BCT's) battalion.

 

Simon,

 

Depends what mission you are on. The 120mm are track mounted in M1064A3's, so they are more than capable of shooting and scooting. They are towed in the light battalions.

[ross.browne]

How necessary is it for a modern armoured mortar platoon to have sperate fire direction vehicle? Does that platoon need a couple of dedicated ammo vehicles too?

[Guest aevans]

How necessary is it for a modern armoured mortar platoon to have sperate fire direction vehicle? Does that platoon need  a couple of dedicated ammo vehicles too?

260852[/snapback]

 

I'm old school, so expect some people to disagree, but FDC is a separate donctrinal function from shooting. Even with computers you don't want to be doing it on the same vehicle that is doing the shooting.

 

Ideally, you'd have a 1-1 ammo-gun vehicle relationship. Practically, you could get away with none or 1-2, operational limitaitons would ensue.

[Guest aevans]

The maneuver BN commander is going to be flush with mortars now that the "arms romm" concept is taking hold.  He'll have 60, 81 and 120mm to use.  A lot of firepower.

260333[/snapback]

 

And you'll only have the crews to use one type at a time.

[Simon Tan]

A Command/FDC track is essential to carry the FDC bods and their equipment. They generate the firing data for the individual mortar tracks, which allows the mortar crews to get on with the business of working the tubes. The Command track will probably also carry a more powerful and higher-bandwidth radios for the battalion net.

 

A logistics section of 2-3 tracked load carriers is highly desirable. Bn mortars go black very quickly in any sustained fight. The TLCs are responsible for carrying extra ammo and also making resupply runs to the the brigade log train. During the Thunder Run, softskins were just too vulenrable to conduct resupply runs up a contested MLC.

 

Something like the Stormer TLC is good example of this sort of vehicle. Armoured crew cab with a OWS, flatbed compartment in the back with ballistic side panels and a hydraulic arm to lift ammo. 12cm bombs are a mother to lift.

[Junior FO]

I'm old school, so expect some people to disagree, but FDC is a separate donctrinal function from shooting. Even with computers you don't want to be doing it on the same vehicle that is doing the shooting.

 

260867[/snapback]

 

The above plus they do much more than just receiving data and crunching numbers. They also act as an interface to higher commands and as an information filter. As a mortar platoon you can be operating up to 3 (mostly 2) different radio nets plus the information flow on the Art battlemanagement network, which once the action starts heating up is considerable. The platoon leader can't handle that kind of information flow alone especially if he is busy with his gun tracks (or at least I can't). The FDC has the manpower and equiptment to monitor everything and to call the platoon leaders attention to anything important. They are also much more likely to have good radio reception/sending capabilities since once in a platoons area of operation we tend to make them stationary. They can then use static antennas. The command and gun tracks by contrast are likely to be moving around...tied down antennas reduce the range of your radios considerably.

[Rubberneck]

Not true. The 81 and 120 are consolidated in the mortar platoon but each company has a mortar section for the 60mm.

 

And you'll only have the crews to use one type at a time.

260868[/snapback]

[Hans Engstrom]

Why not pit the 81 at company/squadron level and eliminate the 60mm?

[Junior FO]

Why not pit the 81 at company/squadron level and eliminate the 60mm?

260921[/snapback]

 

The 60mm mortar only needs a one man crew plus a few ammo carriers and has no need for any additional support infrastructure. With 81mm and up you have to have FDC elements, FOs, vehicles if you want any kind of usefull ammo load, etc.

 

IMO a 60mm has it's place. I also think that 81mm should be pushed down to the company level. We did this in our recent reorganisation. Most Inf company commanders don't seem to be too sure what to do with them but thats another story.

[Rubberneck]

Well, any good battalion commander worth his salt will tailor his forces as necessary Hans.

 

It's up to the Company Commanders to train with the mortars and see how they should be used.

[Hans Engstrom]

I fail to see any situation where a 81mm would be superior to a 120mm, so why give the Battalion commander a choice?

 

So stick the 60mm at platoon level then? 81mm at company and 120mm at battalion.

[FALightFighter]

I fail to see any situation where a 81mm would be superior to a 120mm, so why give the Battalion commander a choice?

 

Well, it sucks, but you can manpack an 81mm and minimal ammo- impossible with a 120mm

 

 

So stick the 60mm at platoon level then? 81mm at company and 120mm at battalion.

260977[/snapback]

 

Again, I'm used to the US system, but our units with the arms room concept have 120s in all the vehicles (2 per company, and 4 per battalion). For situations where the unit will conduct dismounted operations, the companies ahve 60s and the battalion has 81s- again, this makes sense to me, since a company AO will usually be covered by the 60s, while a battalion AO will require the 81s to support the whole AO.

[ross.browne]

With GPS equipped radios and the like, is it necessary to have a FDCs for each section if the mortar platoon is operating in a split-section mode?

[Hans Engstrom]

We don't have anything as small as the 60mm, our 47mm being retired in the late 40s. Company support is through the organic RCL/Carl Gustaf squads (or the 40mm of the CV90). Battalions now all have 6 120mm mortars in 2 3 gun platoons. When AMOS come online this will be reduced to 2 vehicles per platoon (mind you, that'll make 8 tubes, since the AMOS has a twin mortar) as I understand it.

 

Ranger units manpack the 81mm mortar though.