Doctrinal employment of mortars

[Simon Tan]

The US use of 60mm mortars at company level dates back to WWII where they had 3 M1 Brandts in the weapons platoon. Much is made of the relative paucity of MGs in the US infantry organisation but their mortar section was a very effective supporting arm that could be called in at platoon and even squad level usign handie-talkies.

 

The 60 remains very useful for light infantry work where portability is very critical. It is substantially easier to man-pack the tubes and more improtantly ammunition for the 60s. They don;t make much sense in a mech/motor application or for static roles, which is why the US is using the Arms Room concept.

 

The experience of Afghanistan is that some adversaries simply won't oblige and fight in terrain that allows the use of heavier forces. Sometimes you simply have to go where the roads end and ferret out the enemy. In these situations 60mms and mule pack 81s are a godsend.

 

I don't feel that a 60mm mortar is particularly useful at platoon level. Commando type mortars without T&E mechanisms aren't much good for much more than layingsmoke IMO. Yes, a well trained operator can be pretty lethal but I would rather concentrate the tubes at company and deliver a useful stonk.

 

The Mortar Section of a Weapons Platoon at company level should have enough crew to man 3x60mm or 2x81mm mortars as applicable.

 

Where I am undecided is whether there is a role for 'long' 60s and 81s. They have heavier tubes but offer better range.

 

Simon

[EchoFiveMike]

Where I am undecided is whether there is a role for 'long' 60s and 81s. They have heavier tubes but offer better range. 

 

Simon

261304[/snapback]

 

Hydro formed Inconel tubes can give you long barrel performance at current tube weights. The follow on to the M252 and M224 will most likely use this tech, whether they go long tube or reduce weight remains undecided. The ammo folks are looking to add an increment and extend 81mm M252 past 6km, 6500m was the number I heard.

 

You can always leave guns behind in the Bn or higher staging area. Trying to find the gear once you're in country is impossible. BTDT. US Bn and smaller formations are criminally short of organic firepower, we put far too much reliance on Div and Corps arty as well as the USAF/USN/USMC air. You have to ask for that, and procedure sucks up the most precious resource of all, TIME. S/F.....Ken M

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19 by Junior FO

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19 by Junior FO

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19 by Junior FO

[FirstOfFoot]

I don't feel that a 60mm mortar is particularly useful at platoon level. Commando type mortars without T&E mechanisms aren't  much good for much more than layingsmoke IMO. Yes, a well trained operator can be pretty lethal but I would rather concentrate the tubes at company and deliver a useful stonk.

 

Tried that with the 51mm mortar on a (exercise) live firing attack (collecting them from the platoons, and operating them as a company weapons section). I thought it worked OK, but then it was still taking me a minute or so to get them putting rounds on the target that the lead platoon needed.

 

Our (Regular) CO with a chunk of experience suggested that it wasn't the way to do things; if I wanted mass, use the 81mm mortars supporting me, but the key thing was for the lead platoon (or another platoon coming across something unexpected during a move to the FUP, say) to be able to put down smoke / HE right now

until they could get heavier support.

 

Supatra suggested that any OC that tried it with her would have got a slap upside their heads, and that small "commando" mortars should stay with their platoons...

 

Of course, it's a moot point for the British now - in an attempt to reduce infantry loads, the 51mm mortar and rifle grenades are being withdrawn, and replaced by having six 40mm underbarrel GLs spread throughout the platoon. The tradeoff is that the platoon's area of influence has shrunk slightly.

[Chris Werb]

The tradeoff is that the platoon's area of influence has shrunk slightly.

261365[/snapback]

 

I thought the rifles and the LSW in particular could put down effective fire well beyond 51mm range? I've read that the Minimi para is only meant to put down suppressive fire out to 300 metres, but I wouldn't want to stand in front of one a kilometre (or three) away.

 

BTW, is the load actually less in practice? I'd have thought six UGLs and associated ammo would weigh a lot more than one 51mm

[Simon Tan]

Just to clarify...the US 60mm mortars have always been 'proper' mortars with T&E mechanisms and not commando type weapons like the 2" and 51mm. The M224 can be shot 'commando' using a bubble sight but it's sverely degraded.

 

FoF....I'll usggest that you found it slower into action because you don't train and fight that way. The Mortar section is usually sited to support the main company effort. A fair amount of Commando type mortar activity is self-observed fire.

 

Simon

[Hans Engstrom]

Very provisional TOE for an AMOS (actually that's the Finnish designation, ours is SSG120) platoon would be one FDC vehicle (CV90 FIST variant), 2 SSG120 and one (possibly 2) Armoured load carriers (SEP if and when it arrives, probably unarmoured trucks until then). Battalions are meant to have 2 of these platoons in the Headquarters and mortar company (TOEM for mechanized battalion, 1 Hq and mortar company, 2 CV90 companies, 2 Leo2S companies, 1 Log company).

 

She's real purty...and wonder where they're thinking of deploying her with that base colour scheme?

 

Edited December 23, 2005 by Hans Engstrom

[Chris Werb]

Just to clarify...the US 60mm mortars have always been 'proper' mortars with T&E mechanisms and not commando type weapons like the 2" and 51mm. The M224 can be shot 'commando' using a bubble sight but it's sverely degraded.

261811[/snapback]

 

Simon, the US has deployed commando type (ie without bipod) 60mm mortars prior to the M224 as appropriate. For example the M19 was thus used:

 

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/60mm19.htm

[A2Keltainen]

Very provisional TOE for an AMOS (actually that's the Finnish designation, ours is SSG120)

 

I thought AMOS was the general industry project designation for the turret itself, and AMOS-FIN being the industry project designation for the Finnish version of the turret itself. If I'm not mistaken, the combination of AMOS turret on the Patria AMV chassis is called Kranaatinheitinpanssariajoneuvo XA-361, which literally means Armored mortar vehicle XA-361.

 

According to this page;

 

http://www.res.fi/index.php?show=31

 

the AMOS-FIN mortar company in each Finnish rapid reaction brigade batallion contains four AMOS-FIN based armored vehicles, although I'm not sure if all of these will be based on the AMV, or if some will be based on the CV9030FIN.

[Guest aevans]

Simon, the US has deployed commando type (ie without bipod) 60mm mortars prior to the M224 as appropriate. For example the M19 was thus used:

 

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/60mm19.htm

261864[/snapback]

 

The capability existed, and was probably trained with on ocassion -- even after the adoption of the M224, USMC school shoots usually included a few rounds in handheld mode -- but for all practical purposes the 60mm mortar was employed as a regular bipod mounted mortar in indirect fire mode.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19 by Junior FO

[Chris Werb]

The capability existed, and was probably trained with on ocassion -- even after the adoption of the M224, USMC school shoots usually included a few rounds in handheld mode -- but for all practical purposes the 60mm mortar was employed as a regular bipod mounted mortar in indirect fire mode.

261922[/snapback]

 

The M19 was only issued a bipod in 1949 - prior to that it had been used exclusively hand-held. The hand-held version had previously been designated T18E6. Its use seems to have been largely confined to Army Airborne and Rangers. With the M224, they even included a special base-plate (M8) range-estimator sight and trigger-firing specifically for hand-held mode. To what extent there are actually used is another matter of course.

 

 

In the attack or movement to contact, the larger M7 baseplate can be left at the trains location and brought forward later. The smaller M8 baseplate is lighter by 11 pounds, which allows the crew to carry three more rounds for each mortar. If a mortar squad is attached to a platoon conducting a combat patrol, the squad leader can choose to carry only the mortar cannon and the M8 baseplate. This is the lightest combination possible, weighing only 18 pounds. The mortar is then fired using the direct-lay, hand-held mode.

 

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mortar/M224.html

 

http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/m224/

[Wobbly Head]

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

 

Depends on your setup. If the location/trajectory data for each gun is computed seperatly then you could use one FDC for both sections. Radio range would limit how far away the sections can operate and only one target could be handled at a time.

261345[/snapback]

 

Having fitted these systems both of these statements are true but also false battle feild networks can display all targets real time onto digital maps and is set up to do so all and you can run every thing of a PDA plugged into any networked radio. But there is wil be too much information even if they are only monerting just the BN footprint and the Artillary and mortars have their own command track which will assign the targets and proirity because every soldier and AFV will have the ability to become a forward controller mark the position on their PDA map using their GPS or point their gun and lase the position and type a couple of keys will transmit the exact location to every one in the network so there is a need for target assigning and proiritising which requires comand & control but multiple targets can be assigned for different tubes with this C&C.

Edited December 24, 2005 by Wobbly Head

[Guest aevans]

aevans:

 

How big is the target zone of a 60mm platoon (3 mortars?) ? 50mx50m?

 

What's the minimum distance to friendly forces?

262276[/snapback]

 

In my experience, mortars were never though of as covering box-shaped zones. On a fire plan diagram, pre plotted targets would be points, designated by crosshairs, while final protective fire targets would be noted by linear coverage symbol looking something like this:

 

|--60mm--|

 

Having said that, given that the guns were generally deployed in a line or shallow "v", with 10-15 meters between guns, a coverage zone of 50x50 meters is reasonable.

 

As for minimum safe distance, I've personally been as close as 60-70 meters to impacting HE rounds in training. In fire plan perparation, we used to regularly plot 60mm fires within 50m of friendly positions.

[Guest aevans]

The M19 was only issued a bipod in 1949 - prior to that it had been used exclusively hand-held. The hand-held version had previously been designated T18E6.  Its use seems to have been largely confined to Army Airborne and Rangers. Apparently (according to the USMC themselves), even with the M224, a different baseplate (the M8) is even issued for hand-held use. To what extent it is actually used is another matter of course.

 

http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/m224/

262302[/snapback]

 

Well, I don't think I'd know much about what went on over fifty years ago, now would I? Speaking strictly to my experience within the last 20 years, yes there is a handheld mode that includes a small baseplate, but it just isn't practiced very often, and nobody I knew or heard of ever seriously planned to use it in combat (or ever did use it in combat) in other than bipod mode.

[EchoFiveMike]

Way back when(1992 IIRC), I saw the mortarmen from 1/9 using the M224 in handheld mode to engage targets at Camp Fuji, Japan.

 

Some patrols in Iraq take the M224 in handheld mode for HE and smoke use. Command staff types often gets butt hurt about this because they think it's too much firepower. So you take AT4's instead and they're OK with that

 

Mostly the M224 is used like a little 81, off the bipod in a prepared position. It doesn't have any advantage over direct fire weapons when used in the assault mode, the effectiveness of airbursting ammo tending to be reduced by rather casual accuracy. S/F.....Ken M

[Chris Werb]

Well, I don't think I'd know much about what went on over fifty years ago, now would I?

 

Sorry Tony, I was (indirectly) responding to this from Simon:

 

"Just to clarify...the US 60mm mortars have always been 'proper' mortars with T&E mechanisms and not commando type weapons like the 2" and 51mm."

 

'Always' exceeds 20 years. For the record, I think you know quite a lot about what went on over fifty years ago.

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 19 by Junior FO

[Guest aevans]

The box is an FO thing thats helps visualize the area that the fire mission is expected to cover...the only question then being wether the center of the box is where it is supposed to be:)

262493[/snapback]

 

Like I said, in my experience, mortar FOs in the US don't think in terms of a box of coverage. It's more a case of adjusting the base piece onto the target, then adjusting the effect if they have to.

 

Depending on the angle of the observer to the gun line and what you are working with (art or mortar) the shape varies but in general it works pretty well.

 

Really?

[Junior FO]

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

Having fitted these systems both of these statements are true but also false battle feild networks can display all targets real time onto digital maps and is set up to do so all and you can run every thing of a PDA plugged into any networked radio. But there is wil be too much information even if they are only monerting just the BN footprint and the Artillary and mortars have their own command track which will assign the targets and proirity because every soldier and AFV will have the ability to become a forward controller mark the position on their PDA map using their GPS or point their gun and lase the position and type a couple of keys will transmit the exact location to every one in the network so there is a need for target assigning and proiritising which requires comand & control but multiple targets can be assigned for different tubes with this C&C.

262349[/snapback]

 

I was referring to the computing of the actual ballistic data which is not part of any C&C network that I know of.

[Manic Moran]

Does the one-man-mortar category (i.e. 60mm or smaller) really perform a practical function that lads using an M203 can't do?

 

NTM

[Chris Werb]

Does the one-man-mortar category (i.e. 60mm or smaller) really perform a practical function that lads using an M203 can't do?

 

NTM

262545[/snapback]

 

Mortars are (I'd guess) better for putting down smoke (40mm smoke exists but I think it's more for marking targets etc.) and for searching fire behind cover. A 60mm mortar shell is going to produce a lot more frags than the tiny sphere you get in most 40mm projectiles. Whilst 40mm airburst (and bounding) rounds exist, a 60mm is going to get you more value from the cost of a fuze (although there apprantly have been problems firing such rounds from under canopy etc. initiating the MF VT fuze).

[Guest aevans]

Does the one-man-mortar category (i.e. 60mm or smaller) really perform a practical function that lads using an M203 can't do?

 

NTM

262545[/snapback]

 

Well, in the US service, a 60mm mortar has always been considered at least a three man weapon. On that basis, it's a very useful weapon -- in the light infantry battle, it allows the company commander to influence the battle in ways he can't with machineguns or rocket launchers, which are generally assigned to the rifle platoons.