The Roll Corrected Guided Mortar

In our recent discussion about the merits, or not, of lightweight artillery systems one lightweight system we ignored (mostly) was mortars.

As we know, in the British Army mortars are an infantry battalion weapon, not the Royal Artillery.

In almost every conflict they have proven to be devastatingly effective and Afghanistan is no different. Apart from lethality, their principal advantages are simplicity, portability, relatively small logistics overhead and absolute minimal reaction times.

British Army 81mm Mortar
British Army 81mm Mortar

The latter is particularly important and well practised by mortar teams and fire controllers.

Awesome, as the kids say, with stoppage drills as a bonus!

Absolute pinpoint accuracy is not high on the wishlist in general and some dispersion is obviously an advantage which is perhaps one of the reasons precision guided mortar rounds have not entered widespread service. One would assume the launch velocities and resultant forces on a mortar round (or is it bomb!) are much lower than conventional artillery and therefore less of an engineering challenge but they still remain largely unused.

At the height of the Cold War there were a number of attempts at millimetric radar guided mortar rounds for the anti tank role, the Royal Ordnance Merlin for example. This was launched from the in service L16 81mm mortar to a range of 4km and it would seek its own targets within a 300m metre square.

Merlin 81mm Guided Mortar
Merlin 81mm Guided Mortar, Pressed Combats and Eighties Tache :)

It never entered service because of cost and the massed tank Soviet hordes never appeared.

Another example was the Swedish 120mm STRIX

Despite using different guidance systems both were aimed at the anti armour mission where the larger diameter STRIX would have been able to achieve a much greater armour penetration than the 81mm Merlin.

Moving forward, GPS and laser guidance technology has taken over from the anti armour terminal IR and millimetric radar but still the demand for precision guidance in 81mm mortars has not been overwhelming.

I don’t think it is widely known that the UK now has a precision option for the 81mm L16 mortar.

A couple of years ago BAE teamed up with General Dynamics to develop the Roll Controlled Guided Mortar (RCGM) and this programme culminated in a successful demonstration in the USA where 16 live rounds were fired at targets between 980m and 4,000m.

In each firing, the round achieved a CEP of less than 5m.

Roll Corrected Guided Mortar 09
81mm Roll Corrected Guided Mortar
Roll Corrected Guided Mortar 10
Roll Corrected Guided Mortar sequence of operation
Roll Corrected Guided Mortar 11
Roll Corrected Guided Mortar accuracy comparison
Roll Corrected Guided Mortar 12
Roll Corrected Guided Mortar target effects

By using the existing launch system, bombs and fuses, the RCGM is aiming for the budget conscious buyer.

Seems to be just waiting for the purchase order!

Read more here

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2012/armaments/Wednesday13995habash.pdf

 

 

 

 

93 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DavidNiven
DavidNiven
March 12, 2014 10:18 am

If it does what it says, then this is the type of munition that is perfect for a cash conscious Army.

Tom
Tom
March 12, 2014 10:39 am

TD – Sounds like a great piece of kit. Likely this (or something very similar) is one somebodys wishlist, but not high enough up at the moment. But perhaps once the Army has reset itself after Afgan, then this might make an appearance.

DavidNiven
DavidNiven
March 12, 2014 10:58 am

Would have been handy in Afghan as well, how many Javelins/CAS did we use when we could have used these and Excalibur type rounds first?

S O
S O
March 12, 2014 12:29 pm

“If it does what it says, then this is the type of munition that is perfect for a cash conscious Army.”

So somebody told you the bulk price of the kit and its competitors ads well as of regular ammunition as well as the kits’ failure rate?

DavidNiven
DavidNiven
March 12, 2014 12:48 pm

S O

I think you need to read the post again I’m pretty certain I wrote “If it does what it says”

Which to me implies trials and cost analysis. Maybe I’m wrong?

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
March 12, 2014 12:57 pm

I just wonder… When weaponising the UAV was all the craze, people actually looken into what a Reapercosts,wityh all of its back up and recovery systems and then the dilemma became: why can’t we weaponise UAVs that we can afford to lose.

And theanswer, becausethe payload wasn’t that much, became mortar rounds. But you can’t just drop them willy- nilly… Need to guide them as you would only haveone or two.

I just wonder if that technology has now been brought ” back to earth”?

James Bolivar DiGriz
James Bolivar DiGriz
March 12, 2014 1:21 pm

As someone who has never been involved with mortars, can I ask two questions. One generic and one specific.

Firstly, when mortars are being used for an area effect (e.g. making enemy troops keep their heads down or even killing them) what ensures that all of the rounds (or bombs!) from the same mortar don’t land in the same place?

There is bound to be some dispersion but I wondered if that is sufficient. Clearly they won’t all land within, say, a metre of each other but if they were within 10 metres of each other that would not be okay if the enemy troops are spread across several hundred metres of front and to a depth of tens of metres.

In the videos the gunner (? mortarman?) seemed to be looking at or adjusting something between shots. Is that how a sufficient spread is achieved? If so does that control just range or direction as well?

Secondly, the Roll Corrected Guided Mortar has a CEP of <5m. My understanding is that CEP is the diameter of the circle within which 50% would land.

Whilst much better than a CEP of 71m, that does not seem good enough to act as an anti-tank weapon which the earlier guided mortar rounds were for. Is that right?

S O
S O
March 12, 2014 1:26 pm

The article only claims “budget conscious buyer”, CEP and a dispersion pattern.

BAe and cheap don’t fit together.
CEP is misleading with guided or trajectory correcting munitions, for technical failures may lead to stray rounds farther off target than known from defective dumb rounds.
To add an element (guidance kit) increases the rate of failure.
The guidance kit is not compatible with the existing range of fuzes, as it replaces the fuze.
Shelf life of the guidance kit wasn’t even hinted at.
GPS component may encounter ECM.

There’s so much more to consider than what was mentioned that your conclusion was hasty even with your conditions – especially as “perfect” is an ambitious description.

I didn’t write this to criticise you specifically. I point this out because many people react with such haste to military hardware and neglect the non-superficial issues.

DavidNiven
DavidNiven
March 12, 2014 1:40 pm

‘especially as “perfect” is an ambitious description’

Depends on your level of ambition, if it is to get a CEP of <5m with your current stock of mortar rounds then it is, if there are other factors to consider then maybe not.
Is this a forum where we have to be literary and legally correct all the time or can we have a general discussion?

S O
S O
March 12, 2014 2:24 pm

Again; I don’t really care about the specific case.

It’s easy to fall for military hardware promises, novelties, looks, elegance.
To fall for this and then ‘discuss it generally’ is pointless fooling around, though.
The CEP is not particularly interesting in practice. Few targets are small enough that a single guided mortar bomb with 5 m CEP my be the answer. And a CEP of 5 metres tells nothing about the minimum distances to friendly troops. You cannot simply add the frag radius to the CEP, for example. Not even with a multiplier. Defective PGM with their stray radius and their rate of failure can be much more important for the minimum safe distance setting.

It’s this non-superficial, non-spec sheet stuff that matters most.
I wrote about this two years ago, and still think it’s important to point out.
http://tinyurl.com/nzdcmhj

@Digriz:
“what ensures that all of the rounds (or bombs!) from the same mortar don’t land in the same place?”
Nothing, but they don’t arrive at the same time and men in the area will often run to safety, so an already hit spot may actually be a good spot for another hit mere seconds later.
The probability of overlapping fragmentation areas is quite small anyway when a large CEP and a small fragmentation pattern are combined.

DavidNiven
DavidNiven
March 12, 2014 2:49 pm

‘Few targets are small enough that a single guided mortar bomb with 5 m CEP my be the answer’

Nearly every target would benefit from a CEP of <5m. For a start it would reduce the rounds required to achieve the desired effect.

S O
S O
March 12, 2014 3:00 pm

You’re thinking of a single, small point target.

Now let’s say a platoon takes fire, takes cover and identifies the threat at multiple infantrymen with frontal bulletproof cover spread out over a 200×50 m gentle forward slope with patches of concealing foliage.

The traditional approach would be to call or fires, and the fires would cover much if not most of that area. A single call.

Now with CEP=5 m munition: Every firing position may be identified individually, and the fire mission takes much, much longer (own platoon may be destroyed by then with dumb rounds).
Alternatively, CEP=5 m munition may be used to shoot a pattern. Which means additional quick pattern creation and fuze setting demands exist. More expensive ammunition ends up doing the same (=force them to move) that dumb mortar bombs can do much cheaper and with less concerns.

DavidNiven
DavidNiven
March 12, 2014 3:15 pm

‘Now let’s say a platoon takes fire, takes cover and identifies the threat at multiple infantrymen with frontal bulletproof cover spread out over a 200×50 m gentle forward slope with patches of concealing foliage.’

‘Nearly every target would benefit from a CEP of <5m' I said nearly, your one example is a time when you would not call precision.

'=force them to move', the last thing you would do was move from a prepared position to try and run through mortar rounds, best to take your chances where you are. It will however prevent reinforcements coming to assist them.

S O
S O
March 12, 2014 3:38 pm

Opinions disagree on the ‘move’ thing, but I can assure you there are armies which teach to run when mortar bombs explode nearby. The whole airburst fuze business makes even most prepared positions decidedly unsatisfactory against mortar fires and even if the first few bombs are PDSQ, later ones may be airburst ones once an observer corrected the aim.

Area or moving targets are actually typical targets. Individual machine gun positions and similar can easily adapt to the PGM threat by alternating between movement and fire.

monkey
monkey
March 12, 2014 4:41 pm

I think the phrase ‘add another string for your bow’ would be appropriate , the bulk of munitions (see the stockpiles in the first to images) would of course be of the Cheap And Dumb variety (90%) but a small replacement proportion of this round (and a resurrected modernized ,30 years of electronics technology in between , Merlin round for anti-vehicle use say a swarm of ‘technical armed with 14.5mm HMG’s bearing down on your position or escaping for that matter ) could be used to flush out a particularly stubborn position . A CEP of 5m with a HE warhead with a blast radius of 40m should remove or completely concuss the enemy long enough for infantry to advance from their layback positions, say 100m+ away , to finish the enemy off.

Chris Werb
Chris Werb
March 12, 2014 4:42 pm

There are SALH guided bombs out there too that would be much more adept at targeting frequently displacing or even mobile (within reason) targets, if you had eyes on. Obviously having GPS/INS and SALH on a bomb would add significantly to the price, but I still reckon it would be a good deal cheaper than a Javelin, if addressing a somewhat different, if overlapping, target set.

Re the argument that you can’t just add frag radius to CEP to come up with a safe distance from own troops remember that we (the coalition) are already using a whole bunch of guided weapons, up to including 500lb SALH and GPS/INS guided bombs and 227mm guided rockets in heavily populated urban areas. Not all the former have reduced charges or inert warheads.

a
a
March 12, 2014 5:12 pm

I can assure you there are armies which teach to run when mortar bombs explode nearby

Yikes. I assume these are fairly small armies. By now, anyway.

wf
wf
March 12, 2014 5:19 pm

I think this transforms the mortar from a mass weapon to something akin to a Javelin if necessary. Plus the high trajectory could it very useful for clearing off rooftops in towns

wf
wf
March 12, 2014 5:34 pm

@a: being the ancient crock I am, I can remember that the gospel after fighting through was to run 50m past the enemy position you had just overrun to avoid any DF tasks called on the old position. It was only 84 or so when this Army Cadet was told “scrap that, get into the enemy positions, it’s safer there from artillery”, so said the FI experience. Armies sometimes say silly things :-)

Observer
Observer
March 12, 2014 6:32 pm

” I can assure you there are armies which teach to run when mortar bombs explode nearby”

Ug don’t remind me. If the instructor was sadistic, you would also have a “casualty” to carry out.

a, you run because if you are pinned down with not overhead cover, you are just waiting for him to get the range. If you run, at least you MAY have a chance that you can get out of the killbox. Practically, you are screwed, running just improves your chances from totally screwed to mostly screwed. Better than nothing.

Point of debate, can front line deployed 40mm muntions take over the mortar’s role for suppression and behind cover kills? Would it be worth it to make a “grenade rifle” not like the Milkor but more of a cross between the M-79 and the GMG?

Captain Ned
Captain Ned
March 12, 2014 9:49 pm

Hmm, with 600m of usable total dispersion at 4km, I’m thinking that there should be an easy way to twist a dial on the nose of the fuse to tell each round to move X meters from the centreline. Pre-set a dozen rounds, drop them in the tube as fast as you can, and voila, a traveling barrage. Do it with 2 or 3 tubes simultaneously and that could make life interesting on the receiving end.

My analogy is to all of those classic WWII submarine movies where the intrepid sub captain would order a full spread and sink that nasty Japanses destroyer.

Swimming Trunks
Swimming Trunks
March 12, 2014 9:51 pm

@ Oberver – RE: Grenade Rifle. Not sure quite what you mean? Something like the XM-25 but in 40mm? MV? I’ve seen a few possible concepts. Will try and rediscover…

Observer
Observer
March 12, 2014 10:48 pm

ST, did some checking as well, something along the lines of an MV China Lake. Ammo might be a problem though, 40mm is big.

Captain Ned, just tweak the dial on the mortar as you fire. Elevation for a creeping barrage forward or back, traverse for a side to side sweep. Sometimes, a good mortarman beats any tech tool.

Swimming Trunks
Swimming Trunks
March 12, 2014 10:48 pm

Right – found this:

Vietnam era EX-41; claims it fired HV rounds but other sources say LV…

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/usa/ex-41-e.html

Experimental three shot design, again Vietnam era…

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/zgren.html

Chinese have a family of something like a grenade rifle…

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/ch/qlz-7-w7-e.html

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/ch/qlb-06-qlz-7b-e.html

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/ch/lg6-e.html

Hydra concept

http://www.esdpa.org/2011/10/rheinmetall-infantry-symposium-2011/

Swedes and STK squad support weapon concepts

http://sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/314943

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session3/arvidsson.pdf

Observer
Observer
March 12, 2014 11:59 pm

ST, that’s a wrong attribution. Apparently that is the China Lake GL that I mentioned, which was proposed into an actual project EX-41, but that one never got past the paper stage, so only the ad hoc prototypes (China Lake GL) were actually built and used.

It’s LV/HE, MV didn’t exist back then I think.

Nice find of the T148E1 though. Read of it, but never saw a pic. Looks like an M-79 with a chamber added.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
March 13, 2014 1:14 am

So far only the French use it, sounds like eveyone snould:
“silent and optically discrete operation, which results from a self- sealing propulsion chamber (see explanation with diagram herewith). While a 60 mm mortar typically provide a 95 to 100 decibel launch signature at 100 metres, the Fly-K only produces 50 decibels over the same range Another feature of the weapon it its simplicity of use. The soldier just inclines the stem of the weapon forwards in the direction of the target until the small display on the launcher indicated the desired range, depresses a small button and the warhead is on its way.”

Observer
Observer
March 13, 2014 3:37 am

ST sorry but didn’t see your 2nd post until it popped up later. The Czech ones were what I was thinking of.

Obsvr
Obsvr
March 13, 2014 8:52 am

In essence the same thing as Course Correcting Fuzes for artillery.

Not sure about mortars being more responsive than arty:
– in UK both mortar and artillery observers give order to their mortars/guns, in some countries guns send requests, which will be a slower response;
– guns and mortars use the same computer, so no difference in computation time, in days of yore artillery took longer because they did ‘full’ calculations, not just map range and bearing;
– in theatres like Afg both guns and mortars are subject to air-clearance being given, this slows the response for both to the same;
– mortars have far lower velocity so at the same range mortar times of flight are far greater, but arty will usually be at greater range, that said out to about 10km arty ToF will be mostly less that mortar except at very short ‘on the wire’ mortar ranges.

It’s also useful to note that in UK the MFCs are under control of the arty FST Comd with the coy comd (as are the FACs).

DavidNiven
DavidNiven
March 13, 2014 9:26 am

‘Not sure about mortars being more responsive than arty’

I agree, however they are a Btn asset rather than a Bde asset so have that advantage.

a
a
March 13, 2014 11:15 am

being the ancient crock I am, I can remember that the gospel after fighting through was to run 50m past the enemy position you had just overrun to avoid any DF tasks called on the old position. It was only 84 or so when this Army Cadet was told “scrap that, get into the enemy positions, it’s safer there from artillery”, so said the FI experience.

It’s all a question of judgement: how willing do you think the enemy BC will be to risk killing some of his own chaps in order to have a chance of getting at you? Or, to phrase it another way: look closely at your enemy. How Russian are they?

Swimming Trunks
Swimming Trunks
March 13, 2014 11:28 am

@ Observer – Sorry! Just gave your response a skinny Latte by mistake… damn fat fingers!

Beno
Beno
March 13, 2014 11:34 am

I don’t really think we can compare these to Javelin it’s not an advanced anti-armour thing.
It seems to me that the sensible deployment would be a mix of round. I would have thought that mostly dumb round would be preferred with an option for these available for the cases stated above when precision is advantageous.
I think for me the critical thing would be the equipment to find and load the round with coordinates.
Its lovely typing in GPS coordinates off a map or radio’d from a forward operator and transferring to a round at a time. But that’s a rather slow and old fashioned option. If instantaneous transfer from a lazing rangefinder and or touchscreen to define a spread is available and hopefully in a network centric way. Then these rounds become amazingly useful.

Either way we can’t ignore the impact of the reduced supply chain and all the entails. Less rounds, less supply trucks \ planes. Less people to do that supply, less force protection for those people. Less storage at the FOB, less logistics to supply and feed those people etc etc etc all the way back to Britain. In short a massive impact for such a relatively simple saving on Ammo.
Beno

Chris Werb
Chris Werb
March 13, 2014 6:07 pm

Just thinking out of the box here for a moment.

In a prepared attack, you could input the locations of a number of targets that you wanted to suppress or destroy in advance. Let’s say you had four enemy positions within the footprint of the round. You could have one in four bombs (or some random combination to keep them guessing) burst on or over each position from a single mortar tube.

Likewise, in an SF role, you could recce an airfield or similar target noting down the position of every vulnerable target, then take all of them out from 6km away in rapid succession (assuming the base didn’t have counter mortar radar and artillery and long range mortars or something like MTHEL or Iron Dome protecting it. If you wanted to do a Pearl Harbour against, for instance, Pearl Harbour, you could smash up a large number of warships sensors and comms very rapidly, again with a single tube, possibly having established the aimpoint’s locations by simple triangulation.

Other roles could be ambushes and final defensive fires where precision would enable you to drop rounds into prepared killing zones to the extent that you could drop one behind a rock or building you anticipated the enemy taking cover behind without any pre-registration or registration to alert them.

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
March 13, 2014 7:38 pm

Just a thought. How mission vulnerable are modern ships (anything from a frigate upwards to a CVF) to a good shrapnelling? All those un armoured sensors, antennas, radomes, fuel lines on flight decks, parked up aircraft and helicopters? The truth is that I don’t know, but suspect that there is real vulnerability. Eight rounds of 155mm air burst shrapnel could I suspect do a lot of damage.

Of course, that then puts strains onto the C4ISTAR element of offensive fire (see, Obsvr, I did pass my MK1 and MK2 exams, and recall at least 3 of the five key components of artillery, another of which was logistics, a third that all Gunners marry Cavalrymen’s cast off girlfriends, and umm there were 2 more ;) ).

Is there mileage in looking at a whole new class of shrapnel effect weapons to kill maritime sensors? A T45 is going to be irrelevant with the Samson radar riddled, a T26 similarly if the Merlin is smashed and burning, and for good effect, the wires of the TAS shredded and twisted.

as
as
March 13, 2014 8:52 pm

It is a long time since a royal navy ship has been equipped with a mortar but a 120mm AMOS would work really well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS
Puts out really good performance figures. Lots of ammo options.

The navy needs some dedicated shore bombardment monitors to support the marines. A ship with 4 of these twin turrets would be a good start for the spec. 8 bombs falling on a target at once.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
March 13, 2014 8:56 pm

@as

That AMOS has a range of 10km in indirect fire mode ;(

as
as
March 13, 2014 9:06 pm

Interesting is the 150–1,550 m (direct fire) range. A strange choose as a CIWS if you combine the targeting of the four turrets against a boat swarm attack.

@All Politicians are the Same
Do you thing 10km is not far enough?

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
March 13, 2014 9:16 pm

@as No because even to bombard the beach you have to come into 5NM ( well within range of a lot of very simple enemy artillery systems) and the system would be totally unable to provide fire support inshore. There is a reason people are looking at extended range accurate munitions and systems to fire them.

Chris
Editor
Chris
March 13, 2014 9:27 pm

as,

You don’t want the Andrew having to be within 10 nm of shore, as it requires total focus on navigation and therefore none on fighting anyone. Multi-tasking would be too difficult. If an Astute Class ship with all of the modern navigation aids can ground itself off the edge of Scotland (which you’d have thought would be well charted), you are asking too much.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
March 13, 2014 9:30 pm

As, each pair of AMOS tubes can do 7 same-time multiple impact rounds, so that makes it 28.

CB90 wasn’t a big enough platcform, so the Swedes are working on a boat that would be three times heavier, whereas the Finns want to avoid reinventing a monitor, and have paired the number of tubes down ( to one, with NEMO).

S O
S O
March 14, 2014 1:14 am

AMOS, along with Netfires, X-47 and a couple others relatively unsuccessful projects has become a kind of poster child for ‘sexy’ military hardware which captures the imagination of internet milporn fans.

I never understood this fascination. AMOS is very heavy, very expensive, and very much many eggs in one basket. It’s also unnecessarily complicated; the direct fire qualities are almost entirely irrelevant and all advances you need can be found in CARDOM as well; notably maintained automatic all-round laying even during maximum RoF.

Sometimes I suspect the AMOS fanbois don’t know the maximum RoF of a bare bones 120 mm mortar* or that the only thing that keeps us from exploiting it fully is the lack of automatic laying with most mortars. AMOS basically only adds the lowest elevation shot for MRSI – for several million € extra expense per turret alone.

*: 16 rpm per barrel, as opposed to 16 rpm for twin barrels of AMOS.

as
as
March 14, 2014 2:54 am

The Russians are the only people I have hared of how use mortars in the direct fire mode.
Firer ring them flat like a recoilless rifle. There Mont is quite different to allow this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B9_Vasilek

@SO
The American and Russian equipment video really do have a milporn quality to them. That is obviously what there costumers like. The European ones tend to be technical. Same goes for the blogs depending on the country.
It is strange who you get commenting depending on the subject like when a firearm discussion is on loads of American suddenly turn up.

Observer
Observer
March 14, 2014 3:47 am

as, most ship guns of the 76-127mm variety already outrange the AMOS while being able to provide the effects you want (save for the ToT fire, but that is also a bit over rated IMO). Going to mortars would be a step down in capability save for the milporn factor SO mentioned.

A better modification might be to simply add clip on Harpoons in a similar vein of the discussions of adding 227mm rockets to ships, but in this case the Harpoon is already designed for ship usage, has better range and already has a ground attack modification (SLAM). Why complicate your life when keeping it simple will do? Not sexy, but it would be practical.

SO, some of that can be laid at the feet of US incompetence. The Netfires for example already has an Israeli analog and also a cut down Spike NLOS version, X-47 isn’t mature enough to be determined as a failure or success yet (though I suspect you may be right) and the AMOS has actually been rather popular so I won’t class that as a failure. But there are also heaps of other “sexy” stuff that you are right in calling useless milporn, like the XM-25, XM-8, Dragonfire EFSS, Netfire etc that were nothing but a waste of money. I suspect the next one will be the LSAT. No money to bring it to completion.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
March 14, 2014 5:57 am

@SO,

Taking mortars onto land for a sec, this zeems to turn up overand over again, RE your extra mill or two for the turret:
– what is it worth for the crew being able to operate from a protected environment (not just against splinters) and scoot in under a minute from firing?
– cutting the crew down to two through automated breach loading? You may want to calculate the break-even with Bundeswehr salaries, from the pure cost point of view?

Obsvr
Obsvr
March 14, 2014 9:20 am

@ dn

Talk of ‘assets’ suggests a lack of familiarity with C&C terminology. UK has long followed a simple practice. Field batteries are ‘In Direct Support’ to one manoeuvre unit, inf bn, armd regt, whatever. This means they provide a tactical group (BC and his cell, and the FSTs) to the unit and with this goes priority of fire support, although the latter can be assigned elsewhere because normal practice is for btys to be ‘In Support’ of everyone else in range, obviously the DS btys of manoeuvre units that are not in contact with the enemy are the ones most available when ‘In Support’, but for regimental or divisional concentrations of fire all btys under those HQs will respond if not otherwise engaged. Not forgetting that some FSTs may be authorised to order fire to an entire regt or divisional artillery (or corps come to that).
It’s also useful to remember that regts are only under comd of brigades if the brigade is independent. Otherwise all artillery is divisional artillery under the CRA’s command (in the new regime Comd 1 Arty Bde is the CRA of the regular division).
So les of the assets nonsense please, it suggests you don’t understand the subject ;-)

Moving on, the issue of too little dispersion being less than ideal to cover the target area is a very valid point. For artillery its a software problem and probably easily fixed, just add predefined patterns to the digital sights for moving individual gun aimpoints around to ensure the necessary coverage, the layer just keeps using his sights as normal. For mortars its a more serious issue, at least until they too get digital sights, if ever, because you have either to rely on soldiers’ mental arithmetic and following some basic rules, or on the CP to order new firing data every couple of rounds.

DavidNiven
DavidNiven
March 14, 2014 11:28 am

,

Sorry I’m a bit old school, but you did however point out what I was trying to convey in a more concise manner. Which is the Mortars are controlled and administered i.e maintained and owned (in a budgetary sense), manned and replenished by the holding unit i.e immediately commanded by the unit. Where as the Field Batteries are outside of this structure on a day to day basis, and are assigned to the manoeuvre unit/battle groups as when required from a higher command.

If you have direct control of the mortars they are quicker to respond to your needs than artillery because as you pointed out “This means they provide a tactical group (BC and his cell, and the FSTs) to the unit and with this goes priority of fire support, although the latter can be assigned elsewhere because normal practice is for btys to be ‘In Support’ of everyone else in range” was the point I was trying to make. :-)

NB I’m pretty sure the mortars have an asset code ;-)

S O
S O
March 14, 2014 3:17 pm

http://youtu.be/1ZOPyCd2yGQ?t=1m30s

@ArmChairCivvy
AMOS vehicles have a “crew of three or four”.
M113 with CARDOM: crew of three of four, depending on whether the driver stays in his seat during firing

You could even operate it with one gunner (layer) and one loader which double as driver and machinegunner/commander on the move. The third man is more for safety than for function. You need no turret or autoloader to save personnel. The minimum size of personnel is rather driven by maintenance needs of the vehicle, the need to pull 24/7 security together with few other crews.

Open-hatch SP mortars were acceptable during the Cold War with its emphasis on NBC protection, and nowadays many AFVs are being procured without NBC protection overpressure system, so it can’t be a major issue.

as
as
March 14, 2014 6:27 pm

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/01/mortars
We have discussed mortars before.

There are lots of breech loading mortars that can be turret mounted if you are worried about protection.

Jonathan
Jonathan
March 14, 2014 6:56 pm

RT ” you don’t want the Andrew within 10nm of shore”
That does imply an inability to fight in the Strait of Dover, support amphibious landings, do inshore security or any other task that puts land on the horizon. Barring a few unfortunate errors of navigation history does not support that view.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
March 14, 2014 7:02 pm

@jonathan

Do not engage with RT when he is trolling :)

as
as
March 14, 2014 7:16 pm

There is a lot of trolling on here at the moment.
It is taking the fun out of the discussions if as soon as you post something people start slagging you off.
This place is here for fun and interest. It does not matter you can not effect government policy.
Trolls stop taking yourselves so seriously you are not experts in every thing. Let other people have there opinions.

S O
S O
March 14, 2014 7:29 pm

Have fun discussing World of Warcraft weapons or other imaginary things if you don’t want to face realities about the subject of discussion.

as
as
March 14, 2014 7:50 pm

@SO
What realities ? we are discussing a hypothetical ship for troop support. It does not exist so there is no reality.
It could be armed with guns that fire marshmallow it does not matter if was a never going to be real.

Much like any other discussion on hear it is all hypothetical, fantasy and making predictions that turn out to be wrong.
Most of the posts on here are fantasy fleets and milporn.

Chris
Editor
Chris
March 14, 2014 8:09 pm

APATS,

The very if. It’s not as though I criticise the Andrew for lacking novel ways of engaging the quayside. Spearfish, from 3 metres range, from one of HMtQs Boats of the Line tied up in a Royal Dockyard? That won’t have been thought of by the Shore Patrol when conducting their ‘Elf ‘n Safety assessment. Quite brilliant.

Puts the farmer’s field outside SPTA with a 105 mm shell last week into proper perspective. Qudos to the Andrew.

:)

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
March 14, 2014 8:16 pm

@RT

If you had got the type of Torpedo right I would have given you a pass :) We have managed to land a 4.5 shell in the middle of a sea loch that was not exactly part of the cape wrath range before as well.

Chris
Editor
Chris
March 14, 2014 8:35 pm

APATS, we’re all as guilty as sin of these sorts of things.

I must get my torpedoes right. I must also stop thinking of – apart from the Sainted Conqueror Slaying the Belgrano – if torpedoes are systemically the weapons system that has the least bang for the buck expended.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
March 14, 2014 8:37 pm

@RT

I think Torpedoes are an awesome bit of kit and so capable but short of a major conventional war they are unlikely to see much use.

A Different Gareth
A Different Gareth
March 14, 2014 8:38 pm

as said: “The navy needs some dedicated shore bombardment monitors to support the marines.”

If the marines happened to be going ashore with mortar carriers and guided rounds could they fire them from a landing craft?

as
as
March 14, 2014 8:51 pm

@A Different Gareth
Depends on the size of the landing craft and weather it has a cover on the top.
81mm do not recoil that much so it would probably be fine (watch in a video of one being fired from a BV the do rock rather alarmingly). 120mm maybe not. Firing 155mm SPG would be a very scary experience for all involved.

WW2 landing craft use to be used for lots of roles other then carrying things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_craft
Armed with rockets, field guns and of course mortars.

Monkey
Monkey
March 14, 2014 9:09 pm

The AMOS system fires unique mortar rounds so we come back up against the commonality issue.
However “The Dragon Fire II system is designed to be able to use all NATO types of rifled and smoothbore 120 mm mortar ammunition. However, the USMC is developing a new Precision Extended Range Munition (PERM) round to be able to hit within 20 meters of the target point at a range of 17 km” wiki quote.
This system provides similar levels of fire power per tube. In an beach assault support role could the standard towed version not be fitted to the decks of the support fleet i.e. mexifloats as surely they would accompany any landing for the resupply mission over the beach?(TD?) Firing from this kind of platform would cause serious accuracy issues due to rolling induced by even a passing vessel so some form of stabilized platform for the mortars to be strapped too would be required (like an aircraft simulator platform in reverse) .When the initial assault phase the mortar system could be landed and used in its conventional fire support on land(for that matter other land based weapons system could be given a stable platform to fire off MLRS etc) Dedicated bombardment monitors would have limited use once the assault moves inland I would imagine.
In this way relatively low value assets could be placed inshore and the big expensive T45 / Aegis £1bn could stand offshore and provide an umbrella screen at relatively safe distance such as the Egyptians did with the SAM batteries for the forward deployed anti tank teams during the initial phase of the Yom Kippur war.
(It went wrong for the SAGGAR/RPG teams once they advanced beyond this support didn’t it.)

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
March 14, 2014 9:31 pm

Here’s a design for the “monitor”
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/7963/cb2010mextyl1.jpg
= much beefier than CB90, the originally intended platform for marine fire support AMOS

The Finnish arctic brigades have their mortars (of 81 mm, and also TOW missiles for long range precision fire, as tanks are unlikely to appear in the terrain) mounted on Valmet designs (NASU) which again are (slightly) beefier than the BVs, which are also in use.

Russia has encountered problems with their next-gen mortars, or actually fitting them into IFV chasses already in use. Those chasses are so light that gaining stability seriously curtails rate of fire from what it could otherwize be.
– whereas the UAE seems to have managed a 120 mm mortar on a S. african wheeled platform, withoutneeding to lower the pressure plate. The reduced recoil design from Singapore is used.

as
as
March 14, 2014 9:33 pm

There is also the Wiesel 2 Advanced Mortar System by MAK. Also 120mm and I am shore the systems could be fitted to other vehicles.

or how about the French 120mm Mortier de 120mm Rayé Tracté Modèle F1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortier_120mm_Ray%C3%A9_Tract%C3%A9_Mod%C3%A8le_F1

as
as
March 14, 2014 9:42 pm

The Americans build river monitors out of landing craft for Vietnam so the make effective fire support platforms.
They were very popular with there crews. Had an armoured box on to so they were protected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_monitor

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
March 14, 2014 9:55 pm

@Monkey,

Some AMOS rounds are specifically developed , but some have been simply adapted with fin structure that is suited for breach loading.
– an example of the latter is the homing Strix round that cost Sweden and Switzerland quite alot to develop originally
– of the former: an extenxed range round. Why bother when it only increases the range from 10 to 12 km?

Observer
Observer
March 14, 2014 10:46 pm

Dragonfire? Seriously? That project was canned years back and the USMC got their rather sad EFSS instead.

As for bombardment from landing craft, not unless there was something built in with stabilizers. Mortar rounds are not something you want to go astray. And since landing craft at speed pitched up and down… it means the rounds either go far…. or go short onto your own people. Expect annoyed marines to come knocking at your door in the evening. Riverine missions are different, the river is fairly placid. The sea on the other hand, is a harsh mistress.

as, you want mortar porn?

http://forum.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/005773/thm/5773786.jpg

:P

MONKEY
MONKEY
March 14, 2014 10:47 pm

@ArmChairCivvy

If the USMC programme for the 20m CEP 17km range extended range 120 mm mortar round does not get cancelled it would provide an in depth support round , again though I repeat myself ,firing from ANY thing afloat without stabilization (i.e. with out expensive terminal guidance which has limits) is going to be inaccurate beyond acceptable close support rules of engagement we presently use so only it would be only useful for very wide area indiscriminate mass bombardment which as discussed in the comments above is generally considered unacceptable due to ‘collateral’ damage (other wise know as press coverage of dead/maimed civilians been dragged to the local hospitals by next weeks mujahidin / freedom fighter.)
The key to all the proposed shore bombardment proposals is will it work on the open sea with the tube/barrel based fire platform all over the place in even in a moderate sea state ?

as
as
March 14, 2014 11:10 pm

The maritime use of mortars could only be used with the guided round at sea or once the landing craft is beached so stable.
For most of the history of naval artillery the gun, mortar or howitzer has not been stabilised it then comes down to technique.
How they use to hit anything is a miracle. I suppose with cannon balls and black powder it was cheaper to practice.

Obsvr
Obsvr
March 15, 2014 1:59 am

@dn You’re exhibiting a direct fire mindset. For indirect fire command of the unit is separate from control of the firepower. That is the fundamental nature of the beast. Of course with 81mm mortars with very limited range its not usually a consideration. That said mortar platoons can be centralised and then bn HQ has to decide which coy has priority, this is no different to the BC at the same place deciding between calls from the FSTs (not forgetting that MFCs are under FST control), so the BC would probably have the mor pl take one and the bty take the other.

S O
S O
March 15, 2014 2:20 am

“For indirect fire command of the unit is separate from control of the firepower. That is the fundamental nature of the beast.”

Up to the 1960’s it was common for German battery leaders (rank ~captain) to serve as principal FO himself and to primarily direct the fires of his own battery.
You’re not writing about the nature of the beast, but about a doctrinal choice which was driven by growing artillery ranges. Mortars are still short-ranged and the old artillery doctrine of Battery COs as primary FOs could still be applied to them.

Observer
Observer
March 15, 2014 3:59 am

Obsvr, mortars are not brigade assets but are lower in the chain, usually at company level (mortar platoon), which means that they are tied closer to the parent unit and follow closer, with more of an internal communications loop than artillery which are a brigade asset. This means that they DO react faster than other artillery other than vehicle mounted 40mm AGLs

S O
S O
March 15, 2014 8:11 am

You should both make your assertions about relative reaction quickness limited to specific armies and circumstances.

Mortars are battalion-level in Germany and usually the only indirect firepower of the entire brigade, for example.

The C4ISR system matters a lot, too. Mortars are not connected to the automated radio/computer network of fire support in some countries. This delays the response a lot, and may lead to mortars reacting slower than SPGs.

Artillery shoots and scoots a lot, and much of artillery may be unavailable for a fire mission at the moment (out of range, out of ammo, busy, scooting).

Most mortars have no 360° traverse and need to be set up facing the approx. correct direction with determination of their exact orientation before they can open fire. This may take valuable seconds.

The same applies to almost all towed howitzers and to some (especially the truck-mounted) SPGs.

And seriously; neither mortars nor AGLs are “artillery”. “Indirect fire weapons” yes, “artillery” no.

Chris
Editor
Chris
March 15, 2014 9:06 am

Re the artillery shooting and scooting a lot. It’s a bit theoretical, because no western artillery have had to do that since 1945. Especially German artillery. Good on the theory, Germans, rather less practiced in reality.

I was once lectured by a Boxhead Major on how we should have done things in the first Gulf War, to which the only answer was to give him a stiff ignoring.

Observer
Observer
March 15, 2014 11:46 am

“And seriously; neither mortars nor AGLs are “artillery”. “Indirect fire weapons” yes, “artillery” no.”

Pedant. :)
I do get the point though. Support weapons, yes. Artillery? Only in effect. More or less. I was being lazy and lobbing it all into one category by effect of indirect support.

monkey
monkey
March 15, 2014 12:41 pm

RE Stabilized platform it seems it is already in the commercial market for offshore work platform access

http://comptechlib.com/2014/01/29/specifications-and-features-of-the-ampelmann-motion-compensated-gangways/
take off the access bridge and put your usually land based indirect fire support weapon on top .I think in the spirit of Think Defence and using existing commercially available ,tried and tested technology and adapting it to a military purpose with little or no modifications i.e. no ridiculous R&D budgets driving up the unit costs. This is a possible way of having kit being destined for deployment ashore of it assisting with indirect fire support of the initial seaborne assault phase.

Observer
Observer
March 15, 2014 1:26 pm

monkey, they do that for ship guns. Unfortunately, it is not worth it to spend so much for a weapon which may not even be embarked, depending on your unit. So it would be a waste of money most of the time. You might as well fix a permanent weapon there instead of some ad hoc may be/ may not be present weapon system.

Or even easier, use an EO guided weapon.

That is if you even need to fire it. If you need to fire even your support weapons from LCUs just to facilitate a landing, you are in the wrong spot. Let the air force helicopters and jets provide the CAS, or navy for NGFS or even LCU bombardment ships. If you have to add even a support mortar’s fire to that just to get ashore, you are so screwed.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
March 15, 2014 5:17 pm

Gyro-stabilised turrets is the name of the game when putting mortars onboard for “NGS”.

There is still the conflict between sea state induced and recoil induced movement (neutralisation) and that challenge is easier if the platform is bigger.

S O
S O
March 15, 2014 5:35 pm

Guys; keep in mind this whole strange “AMOS on boat” thing is a Swedish/Finnish idea.
Hint: Both have Baltic Sea coastlines
hint #2: Baltic sea is not salt water

You don’t need to fully maritimise anything if your restrict its operation to the Baltic Sea.

Compare MONARC (PzH 2000 turret on German frigate, trial), which quickly convinced the German industry that to maritimise a functional SPG turret is too much work.

as
as
March 15, 2014 6:09 pm

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_61-52_MONARC.htm
“adapting all of the equipment in the PzH 2000 turret for the corrosive naval environment proved more difficult than expected”
cost prohibited, so cancelled despite the concept succeeding.
The Germans seem to be more willing to pay for experiments then us to prove there concepts.
The rubber mounts thing was a clever solution for the recoil.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
March 15, 2014 6:42 pm

@SO,
PersianGulf salty enougb?

Here http://theasiandefence.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/idex-2009-turkish-defense-industry.html
Are details of a 24 boat anti-invasion force
– Marte to engage the still ship-borne
– AMOS/ NEMO and Mauser27 to support the bn strength Marines force in clearing the beaches
– when the land fore catches up wiuth the scene, they will have the same mortars giving fire support
… Fast moving, self-contained ; can’t wait for the SPGs as by the time they get on the scene, the show will be over.

Then another 36 boats of 50 knots to keep off-shore facilities clear.

Observer
Observer
March 15, 2014 7:02 pm

as, switching out the ship gun as I pointed out before would still be a step back. Hard to justify a program that is designed to cause a degrading of your capabilities.

Ship to shore bombardment mortars, unless they suddenly have some unexpected technological quantum leap nobody was anticipating, are solutions looking for a problem to solve.

And the PzH2000 is a 155/52mm. It would have had a range of 30-40km, which would be decent or slightly better compared to the normal ship 76mm or 127mm. As compared to the AMOS with the max experimental range of 17km (I believe 12km was the high end range figure for a 120mm mortar, most usually only go 8km). 1/3 to 1/4 of the range.

as
as
March 15, 2014 7:40 pm

It depends what you are asking for.
If it is to bombard the beach for a landing that is one thing. (short range)
If it is to provide bombardment for troops inland that is something very different. (long range)

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
March 15, 2014 7:56 pm

Interestingly enough, all the forces mentioined (UAE, Sweden, Finland) maintain Marines as a counter-invasion force, and refuse to yield the mobility advantage to the invader.

Observer hasn’t saiud anything Singapore-specific in his weĺ informed commentary, but then again the country believes in forward xefence, rather than pushing the invaders into the sea from the beaches.

as
as
March 15, 2014 8:11 pm

I am not suggesting that you get rid of the guns it was that ships could have them as an additional weapon for short range troop support. Best of both by having Both.

How close are the ships during an Amphibious assault?
Falkland it was down to 200m
Sierra Leone it was less then 5 miles
During Operation Ellamy had frigates operating very close to the coast HMS Liverpool chasing small boat and providing fire support coming under fire from land batteries. so you have Frigates and minesweeper operating very close to land.

Obsvr
Obsvr
March 16, 2014 3:27 am

@SO: IIRC the GE army places an arty bn under comd of a Pz, PzG, Jg, etc brigade, there is then a divisional arty regt. There are also a lot of NCO observers, but I’m talking 70s onwards here. UK abandoned the practice of the BC being the primary observer in 1938 when troop commanders were introduced, the subsequent problem, only recently fixed, was not enough of them in each direct support bty to allow one per rifle coy permanently (ignoring the special establishment introduced in late 1944 for regts in Burma where jungle made quickly re-assigning observers problematic).

@Observer: In NATO (and IIRC WP) armies mor pls are generally battalion pls, although some armies had additional mors at coy level, but this wasn’t common. In armies like UK and Australia bn mor pls can be split into separate sects and attached to rifle coys. Heavy mors equipping arty btys has not been unknown, the NL 120mm bty in the UK/NL Amphibious Force leaps to mind, but that’s probably special circumstances.

RT is spot on with ‘shoot &scoot’. Actually it was a tactic adopted by nuclear delivery units where guns and launchers were deployed singly in hides and didn’t actually move into a firing position until about 30 mins before firing, and always moved several kms immediately after firing. For conventional btys its not a good idea, more of a panic response to a high threat CB environment, but it depends on the definition. For example ‘gun manoeuvre areas’ mean guns move frequently but not in the same way as s&s. That said, SP guns with digital sights, which includes self-surveying and orientation, have proved on operations (eg AS-90 in GW2) that deploying from the line of march by day or night can be done within very few minutes, but with live ammo its very difficult to practice on field firing ranges in Europe, the safety constraints significantly undermine the training value.

The well proven basic principle for arty is ‘command at the highest level, control at the lowest level, that can do it effectively’. Control means control of firepower, it can be centralised when required, eg a major fireplan, or devolved to a JNCO standing in for an officer, this practice actually started in 1916/7 so its not exactly novel. However, in many armies this person at the front can only request fire, in UK and like minded they order it. MFCs also order fire to their sections or platoons. Obviously if there are competing calls then an umpire is needed, the BC does this for the battery, in consultation with the infantry, etc, battalion comd that he is with.

Naval gunfire is a waste of ammo unless you have observers, its predicted fire is hopeless and in any event the safety distance between opening rounds and own troops is huge. What’s more, as 1982 reminded the army, it cannot be relied upon.

Obsvr
Obsvr
March 16, 2014 3:52 am

You could put a 155/52 on a ship. It just means designing a unmanned turret for the ordnance and a magazine system below decks. Of course you might want to use metal cart cases, but this would mean redesigning the ordnance.

Sticking a SPG turret on a ship was one of the sillier ideas. And a single turret would give very little firepower because of barrel overheating and the limited number of rounds in the turret. If you want such a gun on a ship then it probably needs barrel cooling arrangements, unless you reduce the propelling charge size and hence reduce range.

Observer
Observer
March 16, 2014 6:03 am

More or less. Did my assault boat course years and years back.
One thing that really stood out for me was the advance boat. No troops in it. It would do a high speed parallel run to the beach while doing a random GPMG strafing of likely enemy positions. The rational behind it was to induce any stressed enemy keyed up from watching the landing to prematurely open fire on the rapidly moving advance boat with low chances of a hit. Once this probing attack was done, the LCUs go in with their side mounted GPMGs suppressing the areas that have exposed themselves. Or if the return fire was really intense, you sod back off to your LPD and run home or go further up the coast and try again.

Fire support, the doctrine is to rely heavily on airpower to deliver the boom. Never encountered a case of the Navy having to provide fire support for the Army, only the Air Force. Can see some benefits to it, but some weaknesses too.

And in theory, this is supposed to be done just before dawn. 2 reasons.
1) Slightly before dawn is when the enemy is still half asleep and it’s easier to spot fire when it is still a bit dark and
2) you then have the whole day to unload in daylight and push to your objective. Unloading in the dark is a bloody royal pain. You lose things too easily. Including yourself if you are unfortunate.

God knows I posted enough propaganda pics of training exercises, not going to do repeats unless someone asks for it.

as, it’s still a solution looking for a problem.

Totally off topic, how are the floods in the UK now? We finally got our first rain in 4 weeks and it’s coming down rather hard at the moment.

S O
S O
March 16, 2014 2:41 pm

@Obsrv
“@SO: IIRC the GE army places an arty bn under comd of a Pz, PzG, Jg, etc brigade, there is then a divisional arty regt.”

There is no divisional arty rgt any more, though there are two divisions with one or two artillery battalions each.
The mortars are restricted to the stand-alone German-French brigade’s Jäger battalions the stand-alone airborne brigade’s Jäger regiments (two mortar platoons in the entire brigade) as well as the mechanised brigades’ Jäger battalions (again a mere platoon IIRC).

Sadly, the German army structure isn’t meant as order of battle any more. It’s a deployment pool with some administrative relationships that fake to be an OOB.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
March 16, 2014 3:33 pm

Hi SO

@SO, please join the Club… Doing things that way.

Anyway, even though I always love discussing the use of mortars, and have offered to split the intro fees 50/ 50 with the original proponent, Jed, he seems to be busy with something else.

And I must say that after a half year’s leave from here, not intended but out of necessity, it seems to me that every time anything “real” happens, then this site gets throttled. Not even x is here to keep up the conversation, with his errand ways.

I will stay on as a lurker,but my expectation has gone down a ratchet… Or two.

PS you can all make up your minds about my meaning of “throttled”
PPS. Libya did not count as “real” as the PR side of it was really driving the degree of involvement,not the National Interest

dave haine
dave haine
March 16, 2014 7:48 pm

@Observer

After two months, the flood waters have reduced sufficiently that no communities are cut-off…the next fun thing is going to be ‘Who are we going to blame?’

The Environment Agency have been keeping their head down, I suspect because they know they’re in for a good part of the incoming….not without some justification TBH.

The RSPB and the other green envirofascists, have tried without success to blame the locals, going so far as to ‘flood’ (excuse pun) the local meetings with comers-in. But addresses at the door, and solicitors letters have helped with that.

You see, Somerset has risen…and we will be heard…..

Observer
Observer
March 16, 2014 9:56 pm

Well, hopefully you have “risen” enough to get above the level of the next flood. :)

ACC, x is still around, you got to hit his button the right way to get him to react, like you would an old doorbell.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
March 16, 2014 11:34 pm

Observer,

I am glad to hear: otherwize we would be devoid of aĺl those tasty RN history bits!

S O
S O
March 17, 2014 4:09 pm

“@SO, please join the Club… Doing things that way.”

I hate it. I hate few things, but I hate this. Besides, it’s unconstitutional.
The German army can only become fully functional after months of mobilization and deployment, so it’s no wonder how the Estonians look at their allies with irritation. This limited readiness also influences the work ethic and motivation of the troops in a most undesirable way. A “not fully serious” military is a waste of its budget.

“PS you can all make up your minds about my meaning of “throttled”
PPS. Libya did not count as “real” as the PR side of it was really driving the degree of involvement,not the National Interest”

If I got a buck for every time I explained an American how the meagre way Europeans do interventions is not about capability, but about lack of interest, I’d go and buy a new high end desktop PC right away!