Mountie
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
Do you Gunners think that the time is coming that the artillery regiments will be strictly mortars, no artillery at all? The other question is can 120mm mortars replace the 105mm gun/howitzer? I have tried researching the topic as much as possible. I have found two articles in US military magazines and also a USMC document on the subject.
An article in the US Army Artillery Magazine tells of how 'B' Battery 3rd Battalion, 6th Field Artillery of the 10th US Mountain division converted from the 105mm M119 to 120mm mortars for a tour in Afghanistan. I believe the link is www.army.mil/FAMG/Previous_editions/05/jan-feb05 If not the title was "B/3-6 FA: 120mm Mortar Battery In Afghanistan" - by Capt. James W. Huffman III. Basically it was felt that the 120mm mortar could fill the role of the 105mm artillery but with better mobility in the terrain of Afghanistan. The battery was reorganized into two 4-tube platoons.
Another article in the US Army Infantry Magazine, July-August 2005 written by Colonel Keith J. Bucklew of the Indiana Army National Guard discusses the issue of replacing the 105mm artillery with 120mm mortars in the light infantry divisions. Basically it is felt that the 120mm mortar can pack the same or better punch then the 105mm artillery can. The only draw back is the reduced range. He proposes that direct support artillery battalions in the light infantry division be organized with three 120mm mortar batteries and one 105mm or 155mm towed artillery battery. Or one large battery of mortars and two batteries of 105mm or 155mm towed artillery. He feels that the capabilities of the 120mm mortar surpass the 105mm howitzer.
An official United States Marine Corps document titled "Mobile Mortar: Fire Support for Every Intensity Conflict" by Major Patrick D. Conally discusses the proposal of the 120mm mortar replacing the 155mm towed howitzer in some USMC operations. He is primarily talking about most operations conducted by the battalion-size Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operation Capable). He feels that many operations the MEU (SOC) undertakes, especially light and medium intensity peace support operations, do not require the large 155mm howitzer. The Mobile Protected Mortar System is a breach loading 120mm mortar mounted in a LAV-II vehicle. (There is also a towed version the USMC is testing). The MPMS is much lighter and takes up less room aboard ship, which is a major bonus for the Marines. It is unknown if the 81mm mortar platoon in the infantry battalions will be eliminated in the manpower shuffle to man the new mortar batteries. Major Conally proposes the MPMS being an artillery regiment system to eliminate the need for Forward Observers (FOO and MFC to us) in both infantry mortar platoons and artillery batteries. One FO would do both. He also feels that the artillery regiment is more suited then the infantry to provide logistics support to the MPMS. He proposes that each Marine Division would have an artillery regiment with 3 direct support artillery battalions each with three 6-gun batteries of 155mm towed howitzers as opposed to the present 8-gun batteries and one battalion with three 4-tube mortar batteries.
So my questions, would Canadian artillery regiments be better off if they were equipped with three 8-tube batteries of the LAV-III based 120mm Armoured Mortar System (two 4-tube troops) and one 8-gun battery of the LAV-III based 105mm Denel Self-Propelled Howitzer. The 120mm mortar is cheaper to operate and it still has an impressive 10,000 metre range. The Denel 105mm self-propelled howitzer has a 30,000 metre range and its new 105mm rounds have a kill diameter larger then a 155mm round. A 105mm system would be cheaper to operate than a 155mm system I would think. Unless a towed system like the 155mm M777 towed howitzer would be cheaper I'm not sure. I would guess less maintenance for a towed system but the cost of a 155mm round I assume is much more than a 105mm round.
Mortar/Artillery Battery:
-BC TAC CP in a LAV-III TCP
-FSCC in a LAV-III Command Post Vehicle (see pic below)
-Battery Fire Direction Centre in a LAV-III CPV
-3 x Fire Effects/FOO Detachments in the LAV-III FEV
-Support Troop (admin, stores, transport, maintenance & medical sections)
-2 x Mortar/Artillery Troop with a LAV-III TCP as a Fire Direction Centre, 4 x LAV-III 120mm AMS or 105mm SPH and ammo vehicles.
This of course is the ideal situation, meaning the Army actually got some money to buy the new systems. Much of the same, less the mobility and crew protection, could be achieved with a towed 120mm mortar and a towed 105mm LG1 (less range than the Denel 105mm though) at a much reduced cost.
An article in the US Army Artillery Magazine tells of how 'B' Battery 3rd Battalion, 6th Field Artillery of the 10th US Mountain division converted from the 105mm M119 to 120mm mortars for a tour in Afghanistan. I believe the link is www.army.mil/FAMG/Previous_editions/05/jan-feb05 If not the title was "B/3-6 FA: 120mm Mortar Battery In Afghanistan" - by Capt. James W. Huffman III. Basically it was felt that the 120mm mortar could fill the role of the 105mm artillery but with better mobility in the terrain of Afghanistan. The battery was reorganized into two 4-tube platoons.
Another article in the US Army Infantry Magazine, July-August 2005 written by Colonel Keith J. Bucklew of the Indiana Army National Guard discusses the issue of replacing the 105mm artillery with 120mm mortars in the light infantry divisions. Basically it is felt that the 120mm mortar can pack the same or better punch then the 105mm artillery can. The only draw back is the reduced range. He proposes that direct support artillery battalions in the light infantry division be organized with three 120mm mortar batteries and one 105mm or 155mm towed artillery battery. Or one large battery of mortars and two batteries of 105mm or 155mm towed artillery. He feels that the capabilities of the 120mm mortar surpass the 105mm howitzer.
An official United States Marine Corps document titled "Mobile Mortar: Fire Support for Every Intensity Conflict" by Major Patrick D. Conally discusses the proposal of the 120mm mortar replacing the 155mm towed howitzer in some USMC operations. He is primarily talking about most operations conducted by the battalion-size Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operation Capable). He feels that many operations the MEU (SOC) undertakes, especially light and medium intensity peace support operations, do not require the large 155mm howitzer. The Mobile Protected Mortar System is a breach loading 120mm mortar mounted in a LAV-II vehicle. (There is also a towed version the USMC is testing). The MPMS is much lighter and takes up less room aboard ship, which is a major bonus for the Marines. It is unknown if the 81mm mortar platoon in the infantry battalions will be eliminated in the manpower shuffle to man the new mortar batteries. Major Conally proposes the MPMS being an artillery regiment system to eliminate the need for Forward Observers (FOO and MFC to us) in both infantry mortar platoons and artillery batteries. One FO would do both. He also feels that the artillery regiment is more suited then the infantry to provide logistics support to the MPMS. He proposes that each Marine Division would have an artillery regiment with 3 direct support artillery battalions each with three 6-gun batteries of 155mm towed howitzers as opposed to the present 8-gun batteries and one battalion with three 4-tube mortar batteries.
So my questions, would Canadian artillery regiments be better off if they were equipped with three 8-tube batteries of the LAV-III based 120mm Armoured Mortar System (two 4-tube troops) and one 8-gun battery of the LAV-III based 105mm Denel Self-Propelled Howitzer. The 120mm mortar is cheaper to operate and it still has an impressive 10,000 metre range. The Denel 105mm self-propelled howitzer has a 30,000 metre range and its new 105mm rounds have a kill diameter larger then a 155mm round. A 105mm system would be cheaper to operate than a 155mm system I would think. Unless a towed system like the 155mm M777 towed howitzer would be cheaper I'm not sure. I would guess less maintenance for a towed system but the cost of a 155mm round I assume is much more than a 105mm round.
Mortar/Artillery Battery:
-BC TAC CP in a LAV-III TCP
-FSCC in a LAV-III Command Post Vehicle (see pic below)
-Battery Fire Direction Centre in a LAV-III CPV
-3 x Fire Effects/FOO Detachments in the LAV-III FEV
-Support Troop (admin, stores, transport, maintenance & medical sections)
-2 x Mortar/Artillery Troop with a LAV-III TCP as a Fire Direction Centre, 4 x LAV-III 120mm AMS or 105mm SPH and ammo vehicles.
This of course is the ideal situation, meaning the Army actually got some money to buy the new systems. Much of the same, less the mobility and crew protection, could be achieved with a towed 120mm mortar and a towed 105mm LG1 (less range than the Denel 105mm though) at a much reduced cost.