A guest post from Jed
We have a lot of discussion of fire support for mobile (armoured, mechanised) infantry, and touched upon the same subject in the context of light infantry. A number of articles penned by TD, myself and others have generated comments that examined one aspect or another of various elements of direct and indirect fire support:
- TD – 40mm, 90mm or even 105 ?
- Jed – Medium armour
- Jed – Is the MICV concept past its use by date ?
My constantly re-stated preference for turreted, breach loading, smooth bore 120mm mortars led one fellow commentator to suggest I may be a shill for a mortar company ! I am not, I assure you my dear readers, involved in the arms industry at all, just an ex-Matelot, ex-Squaddie, professional IT geek, who has an opinion on everything………
So, I thought I would write a little piece to provoke some more discussion (because you all require SOOO much provoking….) around the subject of Mortars, aka “lightweight tube, HE, for the dispensing of.
Contents
History
So, Mortars have been with us for a surprising long time, I am not going to do any of the history, you can all go and read Wikipedia for yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_(weapon)
A mortar team fires on insurgents outside Forward Operating Base Khar Nikar in Afghanistan. G (Tobruk) Company is a Ghurkha Reinforcement Company attached to 1st Battalion, The Mercian Regiment (Cheshire) for two years. For the duration of the existence of the company, they are a Mercian Company in all respects. Photo credit to read - Corporal Gary Kendall RLC
Modern British Army
The modern L16A1 81mm mortar (UK MoD equipment page), originally a product of Royal Ordnance (but now BAe) is one of those surprising little export successes. Incrementally improved, with advances including lighter weight tripods and baseplates, the wonders of modern IT applied to targeting, and lethal improvements to ammunition; such as notched steel wire wound around the inside of a thinner case for more shrapnel, and air-bursting proximity fuses, the good old 81mm remains a mainstay of infantry fire power at the battalion level, and nobody seems to have a bad thing at all to say about it !
You could perhaps be a little critical of our TOE and the way we have designed our structures for employing it. For example, we never got round to developing a mortar carrying variant of the Warrior family, instead relying on ancient FV432 series vehicles, utilizing the standard hand laid, and hand loaded 81mm firing through the open roof hatches. Also our employment of 6 mortars per battalion in “peace time” to be raised to a “war time” establishment of 9 tubes – by adding TA augmentees (or more likely stealing bodies from another battalion in the “less than all out war” scenarios of the last decade). Contrast this to the “standard establishment” of 10 tubes of a US Army Stryker Brigade – but more on that later.
At the platoon level, we used to issue the L9A1 51mm hand held mortar, a weapon of a type often referred to as “Commando” mortars. As you all probably know, apparently our involvement in the Global War on Terror used up our stocks of 51mm ammo rather faster than had ever been planned, and then we found out there was no economical way to acquire more. This, alongside a long held desire by some within the infantry establishment who were envious of the US M203 under barrel grenade launcher, to see such weapons deployed widely, eventually saw the official replacement of the 51mm platoon mortar with up to two 40mm UBGL per section. Of course the 51mm had greater reach than the 40mm, it made a bigger bang, its illumination rounds produced more light, and its smoke rounds burned for longer, making more smoke, etc etc I have no issue with this, different tools for different jobs. New model 40mm grenades (medium velocity) have increased range, and increased bang, but they are still really direct fire weapons, not suited to ballistic-ally lobbed, in-direct fire.
However as it ever does, the cyclical nature of wars and technology made sure that what went around came around, and the UK issued a UOR for lightweight 60mm mortars. My understanding of this, and I could be wrong here, is that we first went out for such kit for limited special forces use, and then broadened the procurement to what in effect was a direct replacement for the 51mm as a platoon level weapon for use by non-SF troops in Afghanistan.
So now we have 40mm UBGL’s, 40mm AGL/GMG, Hirtenberger M6-640 60mm mortars, and 81mm mortars – surely our infantry have enough “fire support tools” at their disposal (we are not even touching on “rockets”).
Well before we go there, let’s examine the start of the art; see what we don’t have, and what others are doing.
The modern state of the art
First a caveat, I am not going to examine, mention the often exotic world of Soviet / Russian mortars, with big calibres, automated systems etc. I am going to stick to the “western” worlds systems and developments.
I am also not going to put much emphasis on our humble, beloved 81mm – I will mention developments in the calibre where necessary, but would like to focus on the latest developments at the lower end (60mm) and with its big brother (120mm).
The modern 60mm families
There are many 60mm systems, and families of systems to choose from:
- Israel’s Soltam – the design chosen to become the US Army M224
- Denel – the South African manufacturer of various mortars
- Hirtenberger – the previously unknown (to me) supplier of the UK’s 60mm systems.
The 60mm mortar has recently become an extremely versatile weapon system, building upon the simplicity of operation of predecessors such as the UK’s 51mm and it’s WWII predecessors; while at the same time taking great advantage of light weight materials, improvements in fire direction and targeting and the lethality of munitions. Different nations use many different bits of kit for fire direction and targeting, but at the lowest end of the scale, the Commando variant 60mm is hand held and aimed by eye for direct or indirect fire at what can be very short ranges:
Hirtenberger 60mm Mortar
At the other end of the scale Denel’s new long barrelled M6, firing special long range ammunition can reach out almost as far as its traditional 81mm bigger brothers, and thus benefits from all the modern battlefield C3 systems, from hand held laser rangefinders for the Mortar Fire Controller (MFC) to hand held ballistic computers.
Munitions range from the staple HE, IR screening smoke, White and Red Phosphorous smoke / incendiary, white light and IR illuminating rounds, with various companies claiming their modern 60mm rounds have the destructive potential of the 81mm rounds of ten years ago (or less).
The family of systems approach makes good use of such commonalities, while levering the technology. Denel for instance can provide the M4 short barrelled, hand held “Commando” or “Patrol” mortar, “standard” barrel lengths for tripod mounted “platoon” mortars, and even long barrelled variants (as mentioned above) that might replace 81mm tubes at the battalion level. All can fire the same basic ammunition, with the sub-set of special long range rounds required only to make the most out of the long barrelled variants. Add in the latest M10-BLLR breach loading variant based on the M6 long range, and you have a turreted weapon for direct or in-direct fire support from AFV’s !!! TDS even have a new “aiming” platform for rocket launchers and mortars, called Scorpion, which means you could have an automatically laid long range 60mm mortar on the back of something like a Foxhound WMIK ……. just saying…….
As a doctrinal compare and contrast, the US Army puts it’s 60mm tubes in the battalion Mortar Company, alongside any other mortars of any other calibre, and detaches a two tube ‘section’ to each of the 3 Rifle Companies. British practice with the 51mm was that it was carried by the Platoon HQ, giving a minimum of 3 per Rifle Company (with a fourth with the Coy HQ ?). Anecdotal evidence suggests the 51mm was utilised more for smoke and illumination than it was to make big bangs, but I can’t find any info anywhere on what the generally ammo scales were. The US M224 can be used hand held or with its base plate and tripod.
As an interesting aside, all versions of the Israeli Merkava MBT have a 60mm mortar as ‘standard’ kit. MK1’s had this externally mounted, but all other versions have fitted to be loaded and fired from under armour. The Israeli’s picked up this habit from us – a 2 inch mortar was a standard fitting on the Centurion Mk3 we sold them!
Battalion Artillery – the 120mm Mortar
Although the British Army has never “gone big” many of our NATO allies have.
The 120mm mortar is perhaps seen as somewhat of a strange beast; too big to man pack (not that you really, really want to be man packing 81mm, but you can), not as long ranged as the 105mm Light Gun, but lighter and easier to manoeuvre on a wheeled carriage or under slung from a helo. Modern technology has once again started to change the game here, with precision guided rounds, cargo rounds, extended range rounds, and light weight materials being applied to tripods, carriages etc. However while it might be lighter and easier to lug around than a 105 for light infantry, it is really in the mechanised area where the 120mm has made large bounds in capability. There are so many variations on the theme, it is worth examining them in terms to off a categorization of technological capability:
First, good old fashioned – a manually laid and manually loaded 120mm tube in the back of your favourite vehicle, e.g. the old M113 based system of the US Army, and the original version of the Stryker Mortar Carrier Vehicle (MCV-A).
Second, automatically directed – an automatically laid, but manually loaded system is now the standard for the US Army Stryker brigades (MCV-B) and Heavy Brigades (M113) uses the standard 120mm tube on the CARDOM platform provided by Israel’s Soltam. The platform is connected to the fire control system and automatically “lays” the mortar as required to achieve the firing solution as soon as the vehicle comes to a stop.
Third, automatic loading – the Singapore Technologies SRAM (Super Rapid Automatic Mortar) system is a good example. Fitted to anything from the rear module of a Bronco (Warthog AATV) to a HUMVEE or even their own “Fast Attack” lightweight 4 x 4, the SRAM is a recoiling mortar with an automated arm loading the bomb into the tube.
Fourth, best of both worlds – Auto laid and auto loaded – this was the goal of the USMC Dragon Fire Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS) – which unfortunately did not quite come to pass – yet. The European TDA 120mm rifled mortar, on a platform like the CARDOM which automatically aims the weapon, while also having an auto-loader function like the SRAM. The EFSS would be fitted in armoured vehicles (LAV) and on a trailer for towing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL192U_tlVU
Instead the Marines have deployed a towed trailer based system, which with a “prime mover” Jeep type vehicle small enough to fit inside a V22 is manually laid and loaded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ae8JCsY2As
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbPHl4KqmBw
V22 Loading
Fifth, turreted Breach Loading – ahhhhh’ soooo much flexible fire support goodness ! But again, so many options to choose from for your direct and indirect fire support requirements, depending upon the state of your bank balance:
Fifth and a bit. Manual turreted – the BAe Advanced Mortar System (AMS) and AMS II are good examples. Fitted in a manned turret and operated by a crew like any other breach loading tank gun. Tested on the Warrior and used in service on the GM LAV wheeled AFV by the Saudi National Guard
Finally, automatic turreted – say “Ahhh, Patria” – it rhymes ! From the twin gun goodness of the AMOS to the much smaller and lighter weight fully automated death dealing goodness of the NEMO, the Finns’ have you covered ! I like that Sven Ortman when he stops by always worries about the rate at which the AMOS will fire all its rounds, so don’t forget to buy a second, identical armoured vehicle of your choice to use as an accompanying ammo re-supply vehicle if you pick this puppy ! To be honest, high rate of fire with simultaneous rounds impacting on target at the same time, might just bump such a system from being the infantry pocket artillery to be a “close support” element of the actual Artillery 
So, if you want to join the big boys and go up to 120mm there are options, from an infantry mortar in the back of an FV432 that used to carry an 81, to putting a manually operated turret on a refurbished Warrior, to buying a FRES SV variant with a NEMO turret – “you pays yer money and makes yer choice.”
Flexibility – guided and long range rounds
As I noted, the 120mm mortar might be lighter and easier to cart around than a 105mm Light Gun, but it has much shorter range. That differential is being eaten into a little by super-charge rounds, and even by rocket assisted rounds. However the advantage of the mortar in this respect is that it has a higher weight of HE than a 105 round (being closer apparently in effect to a 152 or 155mm rounds) but also in the amount of money being invested by many parties – both users and suppliers, on applying new technologies to the humble mortar round.
The STRIX infra-red guided, top attack, anti-armour round has been available for a long time. It beat the British Merlin MMW radar guided 81mm round by actually making it into service. However at the moment, developments appear to be moving down two well trodden tracks: GPS and Lasers. The main obstacle to adding any kind of guidance electronics to a mortar shell in the past has not really been miniaturization, as you might think, but the G-shock hardening of components. With all solid state micro-electronics, this appears to have been dealt with now. Another break through has been in the aerodynamics and the electro-mechanical actuators to fit movable fins to the front end (the fuze or guidance section) of a mortar round to do the actual guiding of the flight path.
A GPS guided round can much improve the CEP of even a well surveyed and laid in mortar – and despite the reputation of being an ‘area’ effect weapon, mortars can be quite accurate. The GPS also allows for range extension, in that the flight reaches the topic of its ballistic arc, and then takes a non-conventional “gliding” flight path to its eventual destination. As you may not need such accuracy for every mission, the additional cost of a GPS enabled round should not be a big factor in any way.
Next up is the semi-active laser guided developments underway. Based on the requirements of the COIN centric last decade of wars, with tough to meet Rules Of Engagement (ROE) the US and other nations have decided that a laser guided round is a good idea for pin-point accuracy while producing less colatoral damage than even an Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) dropped from your personal favourite fast air platform. Such rounds are in testing, so expect to see them in a back of a Mortar carrier vehicle near you soon ! Actually, the potential issue with laser guided rounds appears to be the paucity of laser designators avilable to illuminate potential targets. This might actually be less of a problem for armoured or mechanised formations, because again, with the miracles of modern miniaturization a laser designator able to “paint” a target out to 4km or more is no longer a “60lb Bergen” sized piece of kit, and should be added to recce vehicle turrets or RWS reasonably easily. Of course nothing is that simple, as then we have to set the beam to the right Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF) for the seeker in the weapon to find it etc, but despite the devil being in the details, laser guidance is being talked about for 81mm and even 60mm rounds !
As I have mentioned in numerous comment threads, the turreted 120mm mortar could even take on the anti-tank over-watch role, at a pinch, with the Israeli LAHAT laser guided, top attack, dual warhead anti-tank missile, which was designed to be fired from smooth bore guns.
Mortar employment / deployment – Compare and Contrast
Just a quick compare and contrast exercise with our US allies. A Stryker Medium Brigade Combat Team (BCT) has 10 Stryker MCV-B, each equipped with the CARDOM 120mm mortar system. 6 are detached as two vehicle sections to the Rifle Companies, 4 are kept at ‘Battalion” level. Although the vehicles are identical and all carry the same 120mm system, which cannot be dismounted from its mounting, the American mortar company takes the ‘arms locker’ (or armoury, or “golf bag”) approach – the 4 battalion level vehicles carry an 81mm mortar for dismounted ops, and the 6 company level vehicles carry the M224 60mm mortar. I have no idea as to the amounts of rounds of any specific calibre that are carried per vehicle as standard, or what this means for their logistical support in general but it is an interesting approach.
In a similar manner I have recently read that Canadian Army artillery troops are going to be trained on the M777 155mm howitzer, the 105mm Light Gun and the 81mm mortar, and will deploy with the appropriate system as required (we do something similar with cross training on AS90 and 105mm LG).
Summary
Is the solid old 81mm being left behind as a soon to be ‘red haired step child’ ?
Could a “family” of 60mm mortars, with hand held Commando mortars in the Platoon HQ and long barrelled, long range 60mm versions being used at the battalion level replace the ‘81’ for light infantry formations ?
Could the heavier 120mm mortars in some form replace the 81mm for mechanised and armoured formations ?
A modest proposal, or two, or three……..
So to provoke the discussion I will make a few modest proposals, I don’t care about budgets really, this is heading into fantasy fleet land somewhat, as I said mainly to provoke discussion in the comments thread
- 120mm turreted mortar becomes standard for Mechanised / Armoured Infantry formations, and is added to Brigade Recce Regiments (ex-FRR). Let’s go with BAe AMS II turret on Warrior and FRES platforms.
- 60mm mortar becomes standard for non-mechanised infantry; with a hand held Commando mortar in the Platoon HQ, and the long barrelled, long range variety in the weapons / support coy.
- Marines get SRAM for Viking in the Armoured Support Group. 29 Cdo Rgt RA gets 120mm on wheeled carriages or on BAe trailer mount for close support fires.
- 16 AAB gets an Armoured Support Group with all the Warthogs, which also gets an SRAM variant. 7 RHA also gets 120mm in place of 105 LG.
- TA get all 81mm, and eventually make the slow transition to 60mm, same as regs.
- FRES SV “Protected Mobility” variant gets Israeli style “under armour” 60mm
- Scimitar MK2 gets accepted into core fleet as specialist light armoured fire support vehicle with Rarden replaced with Denel M10 (or just gets the Denel turret with it in).
- 1 x RA regiment re-roled to “Armoured Close Support” with 4 batteries of 8 x FRES SV with AMOS turret (paired with FRES SV Ammo tender), batteries on 1 in 4 roulement (training, high readiness, deployed, re-set).
- 105mm Light Gun retired (consider this in the light of more mortars, a wheeled 155mm, AS90 all to TA and LIMAWS(M) revived for “long range sniper” role with GMLRS).
I am sure there is enough contentious claptrap there to get you all talking !
##TD##
As a close to this piece from Jed
Watch this
Followed by this
I wonder if a turreted 81mm automatic mortar like the Russian Vasilek might be acceptable to the British Army. They have tended to avoid the 120mm mortar on the grounds that their excellent 81mm mortar has (had?) similar a range and put a similar weight of explosive on target due to a higher rate of fire.
I have fired the exact mortar you see in the first picture on this topic. I just HAD to say that!
TD – many thanks as ever for adding additional video etc, no chance to watch them right now as between meetings at work, but thanks very much
Phil – Nice one !
Would quite like a few lightweight 155mm M777 for Uk.
An excellent article Jed!
Two links from Phil West’s webpage which are relevent:
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/mortars.html
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/HAGL.html
For a silly idea, perhaps an AMOS-style system but with a 120mm tube and a 60mm tube to provide destructive power and lighter, higher rate suppressive effect in one package?
Excellent stuff. Do you feel better now after getting all that out?
Chris B
Yes, I do, it was somewhat like having trapped wind
Regarding the 51mm mortar being replaced by the 60mm mortar because of no more ammunition being available – I wonder why the Mod didn’t order 51mm ammunition from india as they still use the 51mm mortar (a copy of the british ww2 2inch mortar) unless the ammuntion is incompatible?
Sorry everyone, I just got chance to read the article as TD published it, and just noticed the gaff I made when mentioning the Israeli gun launchned missile !
Which is of course the LAHAT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAHAT
Apologies for lack of proof reading
I particularly liked that 914mm calibre weapon at the end inserted by TD, although I’m not sure the preparation time is an act of war. Well, I nearly liked it as much as the recent post on parachute training, which has set a new high standard. In my own fantasy fleet, I’m going to have several squadrons of those girls as a diversionary tactic. I will leave it to the rest of you to argue about what sort of AAR and air-basing arrangements the jet should have, while I supervise their training.
Great post Jed, I like the suggestions (in the absence of a personal knowledge).
Could the bigger tubes launch LM too?
@ TD – “Little” David –
@ Jed – I like the suggestions, however 2 points about ruthless commonality; having a (related) family of 60mm mortars and shared ammo makes a lot of sense but are they up to replacing the 81mm? As you said they have a great reputation and are apparently very effective in action.
Also there appears to be a lot of different versions of 120mm mortars. Obviously they can share ammo but do we need that many versions, and are some getting way from the strength of mortars, their simplicity and cheapness?
re: 2nd M327 vid
The USMC rocket assist round has a range of ~17km.
btw, anyone speak French?
I like the 120mm, and the automatic systems – and we will need new mortar carrier vehicles over the next ten years – but if the cash wasn’t there for an auto system, would it be worthwhile swapping 81 for 120 for another albeit bigger conventional tube in the back of a carrier?
how about blagging some weisel 120mm mortar systems for 16AAB, fire under cover and can be ferried about by helo if required.
damm forgot to say blag from germany whilst they are doing their downsize.
@ Jed
The CARDOM mortar system, according to the promo video the tube can be removed and fitted with a normal bipod so can be used away from its carrier vehicle, also 120mm and 81mm tubes are interchangable using the same automated base.
so in ruthless commonality we have a heavy mortar platoon of 120mm and company platoons of 81mm with no extra training and with the ability to dismount the mortars.
Hello all
Ref “ruthless commonality” – firstly Gareth – yes I suggested lots of different systems which would indeed require multiple spare part logistics systems, but I did say I was attempting to be deliberately contentious. Also, we would be getting rid of spare parts logistics and ammo logistics for 105 LG…… (and 81mm mortar).
Which links to both IanB’s point ref CARDOM and Brian’s points ref 120mm and 81mm – so yes Ian, the yanks “could” dismount the tube, but they don’t have to because they carry a second tube, bipod and base plate on the vehicle to prevent the need to frack about with it; seems sensible to me.
Brian – cold hard cash and budgets, for sure just put a manually loaded 120 in the back of your preferred carrier, still gives access to more diverse set of precision guided, long range or “big bang” capability (for now at least ?).
On a total of thread comment – I took my son to his fencing class this morning and noticed a poster for “adult intro to Classical Fencing” – so I stayed behind and signed up – SO FRACKIN’ COOL ! 17th century dueling style fencing a la “The Three Musketeers” with rapiers, and by the end of the course both rapier and main gauche (parrying dagger) and Hutton Sabres !!
Can we have a Medieval thread ?
It’s interesting to point out that Israel still uses the Centurion in a number of different roles including combat engineering (as the PUMA) and these have been heavily modified to be used to deal with IEDs.
Singapore and South Africa also still have Centurion tanks. Singapore’s were updated by the Israeli’s to a more modern standard and are called ‘tempest’.
It makes you wonder whether getting rid of all those Challengers is really such a bright idea when we could save ourselves quite a bit of money by reusing the chassis’ for whatever vehicle we think we might need next.
The Israelis used to have Sherman chassis with 160mm mortars – great for urban combat allegedly.
Gareth and STV – yes, Sherman chassis, and Centurions too eh, and I think it’s bad that we are still using F4xx series vehicles !!
I don’t think any of our NATO allies use 160mm, so I would not suggest going there, but obviously the Israeli’s have some unique challenges, and they tend to come up with interesting responses.
Jed, as far as I know all of the Sherman chassis vehicles have been retired with the exception of a single type that is in storage, the Ro’em.
The ‘Makmat’ was the vehicle mounted with the 160 mm mortar.
It was explained to me at yad-la-shiryon that the thought behind them was that the Israeli’s found that as they live on a coastal plateau they are nearly always fighting uphill and providing indirect fire from distance was a problem that they had to overcome but that they didn’t actually have the money to solve with more artillery pieces.
Most of their funding at this time was being spent on their airforce, a good move as it turned out.
Once the Makmat was in service it was primarily pressed into an Anti-tank role as the soviet made tanks of the Arab armies had to stop to fire. In theory Makmat crews would park out of range and lob mortars at them whilst Israeli tanks moved in to engage.
In actuality I’m told that when they were needed in the Sinai many of them had been moved to intercept any potential Jordanian movements. Typical!
STV – very interesting, many thanks !
@Jed: Very interesting article! Can’t really comment on the mortar side of things (except that if 81mm is so good, and has a lot of development in it, maybe we should mount that in our APC’s and not 60mm?). But Merlin is a different matter, did you know it was going to be used in an air-launched capacity under a BAe project called SABA (in it P.1239 form). Can’t imagine what it would be like sitting in the cockpit when all 72 rounds are fired, tho’ !
My analogue text for the Bundeswehr:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/04/bundeswehr-mortars.html
I have observed that people easily fall in love with turreted 120 mm mortars (strangely, not so much with French turreted 81mm mortars). My attitude is different, since I got a shock years ago when I learned about the multi-million cost of such turrets. This reminded me of the original virtue of the mortar; simplicity.
In regard to mounted mortars I subsribe to Israeli 120/81 mm CARDOM until I learn anything bad about it, and to the French turreted MCB 81 81mm mortar (exclusively for airborne multi-purpose AFVs).
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/11/airborne-afvs.html
I’m not sure about the “commando” mortar variety in face of 40x46mm MV rounds’ competition, but I’m fascinated by the FLY-K from that category.
@ SO – Why exclusively airborne AFV’s? Wouldn’t the 81mm/12.7mm turret as standard in light/medium armoured units greatly increase its flexibility and organic firepower?
What about a refit for Scimitar 2? Scout and light infantry (airborne/Marine) fire support?
What about 155mm mortars?
http://www.g2mil.com/155mortars.htm
Probably more likely artillery than infantry controlled…
Airborne AFVs better be very versatile with all the disorder of an air assault. This is the only condition which justifies the expense of a turret-mounted (= more versatile than simple turntables in the hull) mortar.
Mortars cannot be available as 100% indirect fire systems if they’re also ought to be available as direct fire systems. The mix is somewhat enticing, but doesn’t convince me.
Armoured battlegroup direct fire vehicles need much more expensive equipment for their survival and for target detection/ID than a mere mortar carrier needs.
Surely the whole point of a mortar (in protective terms) is to be outside the direct fire zone? You can’t rule out a mortar vehicle being caught by surprise, but mostly you can be reasonably certain it will not be being directly shot at. In which case, why the expense of an AFV? Any flatbed type truck (perhaps with strengthened load bed) would do. Dismountable, as well.
You could get 4 Toyata Hi-Lux wagons into a C-130, 2 with mortars, 2 as ammunition carriers, and looking at the weight, a total of about 500 rounds of 120mm and 1300 rounds of 81mm for the same weight as a CVR)T)2 variant with 400 rounds of 81mm (and I’m not sure a CVR(T)2 variant could actually carry 400 rounds).
Hi James,
RE “will not be being directly shot at. In which case, why the expense of an AFV?”
- splinters and airbursting rounds?
Exactly the design criteria for SEP (splitterskyddad); anything better than that would be an additional kit, only added when needed (and can be transported separately; the C-130 airportability was another design criterion)
Not a Hilux but still a Toyota…
http://www.armyrecognition.com/?Itemid=109&option=com_ebygallery&limitstart=0&pic=toyota_land_cruiser_mortar_carrier_chinese_mortar_120mm_type_w86_002.jpg&path=Sofex2008&task=show&sw=1600
Very good, Jed.
I like the idea of a 120 mm mortar that automatically lays and loads mounted on a FRES UV platform. It makes perfect sense.
I didn’t realise how good the 60 mm mortar is. The sheer speed of target engagement makes it a very tidy weapon at platoon and company level. I wouldn’t say it has made the 81 mm redundant, but it does as you argue make room for a larger tube at battalion level.
I’d like to Medium Armoured Infantry Battalions’ mortar platoons equipped with 8×8 vehicles fitted 120 mm mortar turrets.
I’d also like to see Medium Armoured Cavalry Regiments equipped with 8×8 vehicles fitted with 120 mm tank guns, but that’s another story.
If we had 40 mm CTA on standard IFVs, supported by 120 mm anti-tank guns on a tank destroyer variant and a 120 mm mortar vehicle variant, we would have a very potent mix of vehicles.
who needs an AFV or even a flatbed toyota when you’ve got a perfectly good hip!!!
Monty,
If we have 120mm guns on an IFV chassis, what happens to the tanks?
IFVs, after all, are supposed to function in concert with the MBTs. Introducing a lighter vehicle with the same capacity in all aspects other than protection is simply going to supplant the heavier vehicle on ops. As a result, this “potent mix of vehicles” could well reduce the capability of our heavy units.
Now a way around this would be to have the “Medium” units of current weight-class IFVs and Medium-weight tanks. These are deliberately sub 40t.
To provide the real armoured power, you have “Heavy” units, 50-60+ tonnes tanks and supporting vehicles on a common chassis.
If you had a completely fresh sheet, then you could possibly entertain a chassis with a basic level of protection at 30-40t with the capacity to up-armour to 50-60t. This would be quite inefficient if deployed at the lower weight as the drivetrain and power would need to be scaled to the larger size but possibly cheaper than having two families of vehicles with very similar capacities.
Hi paul g,
RE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdbMpLHE8ww and one comment there,
When we were discussing the countermass weapon designs, one of them was a shoulder launched one, using normal 81mm mortar rounds (not a huge range, obviously).
The biggest problem was to use rifling for level flight accuracy, while not making the force of the propellent turn the launch tube (on the shoulder!) as well
- there is a comment there, on the thread, that points to this being revived (the problem was solved and the shoulder was still in the old place, after firing)
SO – I disagree ref turreted mortars, which leads to both Monty and James’ comments, so lets see….
SO – I don’t care for air mobile AFV’s, UK army does not have enough helicopters to move them. Air mobile troops with a good 60mm, carted about by whatever light weight non-armoured vehicle we have (Supacat or successors) would have to do, no Wiesel 2′s for us !
Monty – the reason I have always suggested 120mm turreted smooth bore mortars for direct fires support is so that they DONT get treat like light tanks / tank destroyers !
James – See SO response above, if it’s for air mobile then un-armoured is fine, however mortar vehicles for every other formation should be armoured to some extent or another, as should every other vehicle on the modern battlefield.
I forgot to add it to the original article, but apparently the UAE has ordered a wheeled armoured mortar vehicle called the Agrab (Scorpion) – an RG31 mounting the STK Eng SRAM:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?197763-UAE-orders-Agrab-mortar-systems-SA-could-benefit
Hi Jed,
Yes, I had that one on some earlier thread, But the beauty of it is:
- not just a good mortar with very low recoil pressure, but also the chosen vehicle can handle it, so no lowering of the plate (stopping and taking time)
- but better than that, just like in the French artillery (155mm wheeled units and 120mm mortars, also wheeled, working together)these Agrabs use the Denel fire control system for both together
UAE seems to be combining the best-of-breed in a clever way on many fronts:
- BMP-3s for mech infantry,and a more mobile scouting/ skirting force with AMVs (same turret/ gun/ logistics tail)
- funnily enough, also mortars on the AMVs, but the same turrets on patrol boats (as an anti-invasion force; land, and mortar rounds raining onto you from land and from sea); both of the latter are of the Patria type… not sure if the Singaporean SRAM uses the same rounds
Commonality in the thinking of how a fire unit is put together, for maximum utility and minimum cost in ” just like in the French artillery (155mm wheeled units and 120mm mortars, also wheeled, working together)these Agrabs use the Denel fire control system for both together”
- I did not want to say that the French use Denel’s fire control system
@Mr Fred,
Re: What happens to tanks if we have wheeled IFVs with 120 mm guns?
This is an important question and surely one that is occupying the minds of NATO land combat strategists. The whole point of 8x8s is that they provide strategic mobility, a capability that has become increasingly important, not only because we have moved the British Army of the Rhine back to the UK, but also because these types of vehicles lend themselves well to the kind of asymmetric and peace-keeping campaigns we seem to get involved in. They allow us to deploy rapidly hence the term ‘FRES’: Future Rapid Effects System.
In a general war scenario or a situation like Libya, we might need to rapidly deploy a brigade. Whether that was to Eastern Europe or to the Middle East, 8x8s are likely to arrive in theatre long before heavy tracked AFVs such as Challenger 2. Without tank support, an 8×8 battalion would be vulnerable, especially if they faced enemy tanks.
The Italian Army has got round the problem by developing a vehicle called the Centauro, which is an 8×8 tank destroyer that mounts a 105 mm gun (and soon a 120 mm gun) and weighs less than 30 tonnes. Firing HE as well as anti-tank ammunition, these vehicles have proved very effective in Afghanistan for convoy protection. Their off-road performance is astonishing. Most important, the Centauro has significant armour protection across the front and side of the vehicle. While neither armour nor mobility are on a par with MBTs, the Centauro ensures high levels of crew survivability. It can also neutralise any MBT currently in service.
We are not going to replace tanks and MICVs with 8x8s, but heavy armour is useless when it takes weeks to arrive in theatre by ship. So while we wait for heavy armour to be deployed, 8×8 tank destroyers can play a vital roll. The Italians are currently creating mixed brigades comprised of 8×8 Centauros (tank destroyers) and Freccias (IFVs). In exercises, the Italian Army has deployed and redeployed its 8×8 brigades two or three hundred miles in a day. This raises the question of how does artillery support keep pace with the 8×8 regiments? Jed has provided a compelling answer: 120 mm mortars.
To provide the Army with a broad range of capabilities, we need traditional heavy armour in the 60 tonne class, but we also need air transportable medium armour: 8x8s in the 30 tonne class. While we need to be careful about using 8x8s like conventional tanks, as I am sure you know, recent developments in appliqué armour have provided extra armoured protection that can substantially survivability.
The question this discussion leads to is what about FRES SV Scout? It is air transportable, but with a 40 mm CTA alone, it may not provide sufficient anti-armour firepower. Once you up-gun and and up-armour an ASCOD 2 to give it the same capabilities as a Centauro 8×8 tank destroyer, would likely increase its weight above 35 tonnes. As good as FRES SV may be, it cannot provide strategic mobility in the same class as a modern 8×8 vehicle.
What you have with heavy armour and medium armour is two complementary capabilities. i wonder whether a UK Centauro type vehicle or upgraded Warrior would be a better option?
Apologies for hijacking the thread and taking it in a different direction, but I think that the enduring need for the FRES UV class of 8×8 medium armour makes the case for an automatic loading and laying 120 mm mortars even stronger.
Hi Monty,
A nice piece! while I agree with all of it, and also the concluding paragraph, this bit here:
” raises the question of how does artillery support keep pace with the 8×8 regiments? Jed has provided a compelling answer: 120 mm mortars.
To provide the Army with a broad range of capabilities, we need traditional heavy armour in the 60 tonne class, but we also need air transportable medium armour: 8x8s in the 30 tonne class.”
- while I am with Jed
- there will also need to be other fire support, as I have raised all along the way:
– wheeled 155, where is it?
– GMLRS in version light, did not get funded!
Not difficult, and not expensive. Just needing to keep an eye on [not] making the logistics tail too diverse & complicated (= a cost vs. the benefit of having the right effects, at the right time, reaching out to the ranges required)
Well, it would be the first comment thread I’ve redirected.
I must confess that I got my wires slightly crossed earlier. I had thought that the IFV and ATk guns were tracked. Support vehicles for a mechanised formation are much less likely to conflict with the heavy tracked contingent.
I would question the idea that wheeled vehicles are substantially more strategically mobile than tracked, especially over extended distances.
Air mobility is a fallacy for any large formation, all the more so if you are operating 20-30t vehicles and with the size of the RAF’s transport fleet. At any great distance (really much more than 1000miles) then it’s got to be easier to take trains or ships, at which point wheeled versus tracks makes very little difference.
Wheeled scores at operational mobility – moves of several hundred miles over road networks with little to no opposition.
@ Monty – I am not convinced of the strategic ; mobility of wheels vs. tracks; it’s an old debate, and each type has pro’s and con’s, but weight wise tracked vehicles tend to be better, particularly over 20 tons, and more compact, making them better at ait transportation:
“Army studies unanimously
conclude that a tracked configuration
is the optimal solution for tactical,
high-mobility roles (off-road usage
greater than 60 percent), gross vehicle
weights in excess of 20 tons, and missions
requiring unrestricted terrain
movement, continuous all-weather operations,
smaller silhouettes/dimensional
envelopes, and greater survivability.”
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2wheels98.pdf
Thanks for those comments. Gareth, let me clarify the term ‘strategic mobility’. It is generally considered to mean the business of travelling to the battlefield; whereas ‘tactical mobility’ is moving around the battlefield.
Bitter experience with a troop of reasonably new Scimitars in the early 1980s showed how hard it was to move long distances by tracked on road. Invariably the links would heat-up and cause expansion. We frequently threw tracks. We also suffered a lot of other mechanical breakdowns and then there was the question of fuel consumption. Moving an entire Battle Group with MBTs, APCs and supporting tracked vehicles was a hell of an undertaking. Advancing 100 kilometres in a day was feasible, but 500 was simply not possible.
The reality of modern warfare, certainly in Europe, is that we have an incredible network of roads and tracks.With 8x8s, you really can move an entire infantry battalion 500 kilometres in a day. That represents a massive leap in capability and makes all the difference.
i agree that 8x8s are not better than tracked AFVs for providing overall battlefield mobility; however, the latest generation of 8x8s have advanced to such a degree that they can certainly keep up with MBTs and other tracked vehicles as well as negotiating significant obstacles. Moreover, if a track is broken a tank or APC becomes immobile; but 8x8s can lose two or three wheels and still limp back to base.
And, yes, air mobility is a fallacy for large formations. But you can transport 20 8x8s to theatres by A400 much easier than you can 20 Warriors.You need a C17 to transport a single Challenger 2.
Finally, ArmChairCivvy. Yes. Amen. Where are the 8×8 wheeled 155 mm guns and MLRS systems? Once we get a viable 8×8 chassis into service, hopefully a ton of other user requirements will be submitted resulting in an entire family of 8×8 variants.
Monty I see what your getting at, and I hear you, but I also disagree.
As Mr Fred stated, and you agreed with, air mobility is a fallacy – but I think your fall back on “you can carry more wheels than tracks in transport x” is possibly contextually inaccurate, but in the end “so what?”. We don’t have, and never will have enough C17 and A400 to move sufficient “mass” (as in tactical mass – numbers, not “weight” per se)of vehicles, men and stores.
So, as we don’t have over a hundred C17, 50 plus upgraded Galaxies and literally hundreds of Herky birds, perhaps we should leave air mobility of “medium wheeled armour” to our ally that can afford it – US Army Stryker BCT’s specifically !
When it comes down to it, while your right about the improvements to mobility of modern 8 x 8, they still don’t match tracked, while modern tracked get more reliable, have rubber ‘band’ tracks, and most importantly for a nation that still has 2 assault ships, 3 auxiliary amphibs, and 6 roll on/roll off transports, tracked generally, for a given weight use have less volume – so you can cram more on the boats that really constitute our strategic mobility.
All that being said, would there be utility in wheeled medium armour ? Many of our allies seem to think so. Italy has done wheeled armour for a long time, and Gabriele did good posting on it here:
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2011/07/medium-weight-brigade-and-8×8-italian.html
The French have also since WWII had a lot of wheeled armour. Poland has gone from it’s ex Soviet BTR’s to the Patia AMV. A lot of our new NATO allies in the central European region have wheeled armour. Closer to home the Netherlands and Germany have actually bought the Boxer AFV, that the UK helped fund the development of. So lets say we went down this route, we might consider a 120mm armed version of the Boxer ???
The problem is, we simply can’t afford it. If NATO needs to respond to attacks / issues on its land borders, let the Italians, French, Polish, Slovaks, Germans etc rush their wheeled armour across the Autobahn networks. We don’t need to replicate their capabilities. I agree we do need a cheaper, potentially less well protected wheeled vehicle as FRES UV, and I have suggested before that we go for the RG35 6 x 6 and buy thousands of them ! But a 120mm armed tank destroyer would not be one of them…….
To go back to TD’s oft quoted concept of developing specialist niche’s – I think the upgrades to Warrior, Challenger 2 and introduction of FRES SV / Scout means that a niche we play in remains medium to heavy tracked armour.
I have also suggested before that we should throw defence industrial policy to the wind and just buy whatever makes sense from a military strategic standpoint – as such I would like to see us, with our limited budgets commit to leading a northern european battle group with the Norwegians, Danes, Dutch (and on NATO operations the Swedes and Finns) – all users of the BAe / Haaglunds CV90.
So in summary, wheels yes, but not medium wheeled armour, we cant afford it, but if we could get something cheaper to replace the old Saxon, FV4x series vehicles and non-Core UOR MRAP’s, then we should buy as many as we can, including the what are basically the old LIMAWS(G) and LIMAWS(M) – a variant with M777 and a variant with a single GMLRS pod.
Oops, that bit in my last post referring to Swedes and Finns should obviously have read “non-NATO, coalition operations” !
Dangerous Dave mentioned a plan to air-launch 81mm Merlin rounds.
The USMC have begun to arm their RQ-7 Shadow UAV, previously considered too small to carry a useful weapons load. The weapon of choice is supposedly an 81mm RCFC (Roll Controlled Fixed Canard) GPS/INS guided mortar bomb.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/missed-targets-prompt-us-marine-corps-to-arm-unmanned-shadows-366827/
@ Monty – Sorry – crossed wires. You were talking about what I would call theatre/operational mobility, in which case you have a point:
“Operational mobility refers to the ability to swiftly allocate and relocate forces within a theater of crisis or war. The challenge it poses is more on a regional than a continental scale. One factor relevant to operational mobility is the “rolling resistance” of a vehicle traveling on ordinary roads. On roads the rolling resistance of tracked vehicles equals four percent of their weight, on average, while that of their wheeled counterparts (fitted with cross-country tires) equals only 2 percent of their weight. Consequently, wheeled vehicles need less fuel and can cover longer distances by road before they need to be refueled.
This advantage of wheeled vehicles disappears, however, when they move off roads. Then their fuel consumption may be at least as high as that of tracked vehicles (of equal weight). Still, if patrolling and area control missions are emphasized, road travel predominates and, thus, the advantage of fuel economy accrues to the wheeled class. Even in the context of typical warfighting scenarios, off-the-road activities constitute less than 50 percent of overall travel. This is because, within a sizeable theater, many movements have to be devoted to marching the troops to the combat areas in a timely fashion, rather than to maneuvering in the thick of battle.
There are two reasons that forces equipped with wheeled armor are more likely to deploy operationally in a timely fashion:
– First, there are fewer and shorter refueling stops. (The average road range of wheeled vehicles exceeds that of their tracked counterparts by 50 – 100 percent.)
– Second, the average marching speed of wheeled vehicles is, on roads, also 50 – 100 percent higher than that of tracked vehicles.
The fact that wheeled armor can cover longer distances faster than tracked vehicles is complemented by yet another advantage: There is much less fatigue for their occupants because the wheeled platforms do not suffer the vibrations generated by tracks.”
This article might be of interest. Its conclusion is that an expeditionary force should consist of heavy (tracked) and light (4×4) armour; the only role it sees for medium 8×8 is fire support – artillery, MRLS, and/or fibre optic guided missiles.
http://www.comw.org/pda/0007wheels.html
As somebody who has good amount experience of off road driving, a good knowledge of agricultural and construction plant, and as a fan of things on tracks I can honestly say that something on wheels, especially a something with all wheel drive, locking differentials, a large torquey diesel engine, good clearances and approach and departure angles, will take you as far as you would want to take a vehicle the size of a small domestic garage. In serve Arctic, mountain, or jungle yes tracks would have an advantage. And on beaches and other areas where the ground is saturated. We mustn’t forget that even if most of Europe is countryside that fields are man made environments designed somewhat to allow vehicles and machinery easy operation. And we musn’t forget either that there were very good reasons why the South Africans, whose sphere of operations covered a good proportion of Sub-Saharan African (and whose terrain mirrored those areas that it did not operate in) designed, preferred, and used wheel vehicles over tracked ones.
(Has everybody seen that odd photo I posted over in the Open-LAS thread of a BTR climbing form the sea onboard an LST? )