The turret-mounted mortar on AFV as direct/indirect fire support unit

[Firn]

The 120mm mortar delivers a HE payload similar to a 155mm howitzer and can reach out to roughly 9km with standard rounds out of a 3m barrel. Engaging the enemy in in deep plunging fire he greatly reduces the dead space available to the enemy. He can illuminate the sky and lay smokescreens . Smart rounds as the Strix and the SMART can engage armored threats from afar with indirect fire.

Breach-loaded mortars in turrets can fire over 10 rounds a minute and may also be used as direct fire support units. The specific situation (OPFOR, environment, need) and the capabilities of the AFV (armor, sights, training) will dictate if it will be used in this role.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxBFUNk2dHo"]The compact NEMO[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJiLHhCqt7I&feature=related"]The heavy AMOS[/ame]

What place will such AFV have in the full spectrum of military operations?

 

[Firn]

The NLOS-Mortar (NLOS-M) is the organic indirect fire support component of the FCS(BCT) SoS, also with a high level of commonality with other MGV variants. Like the NLOS-C, the NLOS-M will transform mortars’ traditional role on the battlefield by providing deadly, accurate and responsive short- to mid-range fire support critical to Soldiers in the close fight. Very similar to NLOS-C, NLOS-Muses automation to index, present and fire rounds with minimal manual touching or adjusting by the crew. Above all, the crew performs its fire mission under the protection of armored vehicles.

About the FCS-Mortar. Seems like the Us army has drawn the same conlusion as the developers in Sweden/Finland. This type of AFV should be extremely flexible and effective, especially in MOUT operations. While they don't not have the huge weight of the soviet 160mm and 240mm mortars per shot, they have a far far faster ROF, greater accuracy and a broader spectrum of far more advanced rounds. The soviets knew a great deal about the capabilites of heavy mortars (WWII, Afghanistan) in rural and urban operations. Germany fielded a mobile mortar carrier based on the M113, perhaps after the experiences with many types of mortars in WWII.

 

[Waylander]

IMHO these systems can be extremely usefull.

Mortars should be added to any fighting bn and the nature of mechanized forces dictates that this fire support should be able to go where the rest of the task force goes.
While being mechanized one can use a heavy 120mm mortar because weight of the system and ammo isn't that much of a factor anymore.
Giving this system fast autoloading and direct fire capabilities is just a natural step.

These new system are alot more capable than the older ones (like the mentioned 120mm tampella on MTW).
I also especially like the direct fire capability.
Gives your troops a very nice HE thrower which should for reducing enemy fortifications.
And while this can also be done to some extent by the MBTs and IFVs of the task force the added self defense capability should not be underestimated.

I think there are not many people in the military community don't see the benefits of such a system.
But as always the price is the problem. An AMOS vehicle is much more expensive than just using a M113, put a hole into the top and use a standard 120mm tampella out of its back.
And one should not forget that such a self propelled modern system also negates the ability to use the mortar also like a normal dismounted one.

 

[Firn]

Well I was a light infantry guy so I'm out of my lane when it comes to armoured doctrine. But I guess that such AFV would be an interesting "rich men's" artillery for IDF and DF support at a relative low organisational level. While it would be certainly wise to employ them carefully and well to the rear in high-intensity combat they should be able prove their mettle against most threads with decent passive protection, an active protection system and the addition of HEAT-MP rounds. A remote-controlled weapon station (GMG, .50, GPMG) with a well-rounded sensor package could provide the so valuable hunter-killer ability in direct fire fights. Pricey but worth it IMHO.

Gives your troops a very nice HE thrower which should for reducing enemy fortifications.
And while this can also be done to some extent by the MBTs and IFVs of the task force the added self defense capability should not be underestimated.

Mortar rounds pack almost as much HE as a 155m and are rather compact, allowing for a lot of ammunition. They are unable to come anywhere near the pentration power of a modern artillery and tank rounds but then again that's what you have the heavy tanks and artillery for. And in low-intensity operations low penetration power of the mortars (perhaps in with a DIME round) may even be often an advantage.


The AMOS is certainly able to rain down an amazing number of rounds in a very short time (26 in a minute, 8-10 simultaniously on target - MRSI) but it is IMHO a bit topheavy for light/medium AFV. A Boxer, CV90 or a Puma would be great platforms for it. The lighter AFV should use a turret with a single tube.

The trailed 120mm mortar retains anyway its great importance...

 

[Waylander]

Well I was a light infantry guy so I'm out of my lane when it comes to armoured doctrine. But I guess that such AFV would be an interesting "rich men's" artillery for IDF and DF support at a relative low organisational level. While it would be certainly wise to employ them carefully and well to the rear in high-intensity combat they should be able prove their mettle against most threads with decent passive protection, an active protection system and the addition of HEAT-MP rounds. A remote-controlled weapon station (GMG, .50, GPMG) with a well-rounded sensor package could provide the so valuable hunter-killer ability in direct fire fights. Pricey but worth it IMHO.

I am totally d'accord with you that such a system is defenitely adding alot of usefull capabilities. As I said before such mortars should be incorporated at Bn level. Why the Bundeswehr eliminated the mortar units of the PzGren Bns is totally beyond me and I hope they correct this better sooner than later.

As for protection and self defense.
I would also use an IFV chassis (CV90, Ulan, Puma,...) but I wouldn't think that a well-rounded sensor package with hunter-killer capabilities is needed. More something like what the PzH2000 fields for direct fire engagements.
An independent commanders sight with TI and a LRF and not something like the FCS of an IFV or MBT.
I am also not sure if HEAT round is needed.
Everything up to an IFV should be really impressed by a normal HE and a modern MBT is not impressed by a HEAT.

Mortar rounds pack almost as much HE as a 155m and are rather compact, allowing for a lot of ammunition. They are unable to come anywhere near the pentration power of a modern artillery and tank rounds but then again that's what you have the heavy tanks and artillery for. And in low-intensity operations low penetration power of the mortars (perhaps in with a DIME round) may even be often an advantage.


The AMOS is certainly able to rain down an amazing number of rounds in a very short time (26 in a minute, 8-10 simultaniously on target - MRSI) but it is IMHO a bit topheavy for light/medium AFV. A Boxer, CV90 or a Puma would be great platforms for it. The lighter AFV should use a turret with a single tube.

The trailed 120mm mortar retains anyway its great importance...
6 Hours Ago 02:18 PM

My comment about MBTs and IFVs also fullfilling the role as a HE thrower aimed more at them being much more often close to where the direct fire support is needed.
Such a mortar system could defenitely be usefull when used as a direct fire support platform but most of the time one is going to use the MBT or IFV which is close by or a (guided) mortar or artillery strike instead of getting a mortar unit up front which also might have much better things to do than act as a direct fire support platform.

I would go for the two barrel/IFV chassis combination as support for mechanized formations. These units already field the IFV, making logistics easy. And the heavy chassis would be able to support the AMOS system while giving good protection.
When doing it one can do it right from the beginning and get the best out of the system.

For light units I would not use such a system at all.
The planned Wiesel II mortar carrier for example is better suited to support light/airborn/airmobile/mountain infantry as it can go were a bigger mortar system cannot go while having a smaller logistical footprint.
And these units rely much more on being able to also use the mortars in a dismounted role.

 

[Firn]

I would also use an IFV chassis (CV90, Ulan, Puma,...) but I wouldn't think that a well-rounded sensor package with hunter-killer capabilities is needed. More something like what the PzH2000 fields for direct fire engagements.
An independent commanders sight with TI and a LRF and not something like the FCS of an IFV or MBT.
I am also not sure if HEAT round is needed.
Everything up to an IFV should be really impressed by a normal HE and a modern MBT is not impressed by a HEAT.

You clearly have far more knowledge in this area. The HEAT should be unnecessary. I thought that a hunter-killer package similar to the IFV Puma/CV90 would make sense. They would operate alongside or close to the IFV and tanks and be have a far higher chance of enemy contact than a PzH/SPG as you also have stated. Thus a RWS with seperate sights as part of a hunter side of the sensor/FCS package seems reasonable to me.

The Wiesel II seems to be a brilliant idea for mountain infantry. Few people outside the mountains understand that such a small vehicle is perfect for the often quite small field tracks/streets. It is not much wider than an old Panda 4x4 and quite light and should be able to navigate very well in the Alps or similar mountains. The plunging heavy mortar fire should be golden with all those steep slopes, deep vallies, high peaks and the resulting robust reverse slope defense. Direct fire by other AFV against it is rather unlikely in such an environment but IDF very much so and with the new PGM or smart mortar rounds quite deadly.

 

[Waylander]

I wouldn't expect such a vehicle to operate directly together with the other AFVs of a mechanized unit.

It's main job is still to be a traditional mortar fire support unit albeit with alot more firepower than the manually operated mortars of the past.
It can be called forward if it is thought necessary to get a HE thrower to the frontline.

But in the end most of the time it is going to operate some distance behind the combat units (at least the ones which are up front and in contact) just like a fire support unit is supposed to operate.

It offers more flexibility in it's ability to use the mortars in a direct fire mode but it's enhanced indirect fire capabilities are much more important.

But you are right that it should operate closer to the front than a SPH. That's the nature of Bn integrated mortar units due to their lower range and them being attached directly to a task force. Therefore the direct fire capability enhances the survivability of such a system in situations were a M113 mortar carrier (Or a similar vehicle) would just be a sitting duck.

 

[kato]

Why the Bundeswehr eliminated the mortar units of the PzGren Bns is totally beyond me and I hope they correct this better sooner than later.

Keeping the PzMrsKp in the PzGrenBtl would have added some 500-700 extra men on the Bundeswehr payroll, apart from keeping the bogged-down, maintenance-heavy M113 in service longer.

(remember, we're trying to get below 250k soldiers, every bit counts )

 

[Waylander]

Arrrrr, right.

I forgot the cold logic of our overlords...

Heck, even forcing the PzGren Bns to transport their tampellas with Wolfs would have been better than eliminating them fully.

But what are mortars for anyway? Who needs them?
Oh wait, our QRF for A-stan which consists of PzGrens...

 

[DavidDCM]

I see the advantage of a turret-solution mortar like AMOS more in the fact that it can be very fast in and out of it's firing position and thus keep pace with an advancing armored force, avoid counter-artillery fire, but at the same time being able to defend themselves to a certain extent.

Due to their relative short range and the high speed with which modern armor units operate the mortars will be forced to follow suit behind the main combat units, with possibly lots of position changing, and that's where the direct-fire is a desirable thing to have against unsuspected enemy units that suddenly appear.

But like SPH's, this ability should never be exploited as a main role on the battle field. They are an emergency and self-defence asset only. Agree to waylander, if you have MBT's at the front anyway than there's no reason to call the mortar carriers forward for a direct fire mission.

 

[kato]

This idea of AMOS in a direct-fire role always reminds me of this oooold artwork and just how ... wrong the idea seems when looking at it.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The non-linear nature of contemporary warfare is such that the traditional concept of employment of close IDF support (ie 120mm mortars) is rapidly fading away. Low force desnisities, networked SA and distrubuited operations mean that combat teams will won't be lined up side by side at the forward edge of the battle but operating deep in the heart of enemy territory in a huge mass of fast moving raid after raid.

So turreted 120mm mortars provide a huge advantage over traditional muzzle loaded mortars in that they can fire quickly from the move and provide full protection to their operators. The direct fire capability is I think highly overated. A 120mm mortar bomb is a terrible direct fire application against anything other than infantry and light structures. Certainly taking the mortar out of the IDF network where it can keep providing plunging fires and rapid smoke fires to trundle forward to shoot at something when you can have high velocity direct fire weapons doing it is a waste of capability.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This idea of AMOS in a direct-fire role always reminds me of this oooold artwork and just how ... wrong the idea seems when looking at it.

There's nothing wrong with the use of high velocity artillery like 122mm guns to direct fire shoot in an attack. Especially in the Soviet system where the IDF for such an attack would be provided by a huge mass of Army and Frontal artillery leaving the Regimental and Divisional guns redundant. So use them for direct fires where without the need for plotting and bringing into line the guns can respond much quicker.

 

[kato]

There's nothing wrong with the use of high velocity artillery like 122mm guns to direct fire shoot in an attack.

I said reminds me of it. As in imagine a similar scene with say CV9030s instead of BMP-1s and AMOS on a similar hull instead of 2S1.

 

[Waylander]

Not that a NATO or Swedish army usually enjoys nearly as much artillery support like the Sovjets would have brought to bear on their enemies.

I can understand why a sovjet bn commander thinks that the support given to him by the 3rd shock army is enough steel rain and uses his attached fire support units for direct fire support.
I would't be so sure about it if I would be part of I.GE Corps.
Especially not when the 3rd is in front of me...

 

[Firn]

FM 90-10-1, 8-30

120-mm Mortar. The 120-mm mortar is large enough to have a major
effect on common urban targets. It can penetrate deep into a building,
causing extensive damage because of its explosive power. A minimum of 18
inches of packed earth or sand is needed to stop the fragments from a
120-mm HE round that impacts 10 feet away. The effect from a direct hit
from a 120-mm round is equivalent to almost 10 pounds of TNT, which can
crush fortifications built with commonly available materials. The 120-mm
mortar round can create a large but shallow crater in a road surface, which
is not deep or steep-sided enough to block vehicular movement. However,
craters could be deep enough to damage or destroy storm drain systems,
water and gas pipes, and electrical or phone cables.

Having just seen the "light" 60 in live training i can only read and guess how powerful and useful the 120mm would be. Given the heavy payload of HE it seems to be a perfect complement to the DF assets and the field manual points out the extensive damage it can cause in the IDF role. Given the high payload of HE it should also be nasty against the vast majority of buildings and AFV with DF. With the high elevation it has very little dead space compared to tanks. All in all a very effective complement in a MOUT. In the chaotic situations of war the abilities of this new turreted mortars should be very valuable as has been pointed out, if only in selfdefense.

With the IFV and MBT to handle the "close-combat" the MFV (Mortar fighting vehicles) are of course first of all there to provide their unique IDF support. This is were they really shine.

BTW: I think that the author just wanted to paint other AFV than tanks in a dramatic fashion. :

 

[kato]

The artwork is a DIA painting.
"The Agency commissioned these works of military art to illustrate publications and support official briefings. DIA analysts and artists worked closely to achieve an accurate portrayal of the military system being illustrated."
The specific artwork is "Soviet Artillery Supporting River Crossing" by Richard J. Terry, 1982, and is meant to show off the capability of the 2S1 (then newly deployed to Europe) in "keeping pace with tank and motorized rifle units".

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Having just seen the "light" 60 in live training i can only read and guess how powerful and useful the 120mm would be. Given the heavy payload of HE it seems to be a perfect complement to the DF assets and the field manual points out the extensive damage it can cause in the IDF role. Given the high payload of HE it should also be nasty against the vast majority of buildings and AFV with DF. With the high elevation it has very little dead space compared to tanks. All in all a very effective complement in a MOUT. In the chaotic situations of war the abilities of this new turreted mortars should be very valuable as has been pointed out, if only in selfdefense.

On paper... But the reality is a little bit different. The 120mm mortar lacks two essential qualities to be a good direct fire weapon. Including in high angle direct fires against the upper stories of tall buildings in urban environments.

These two qualities are a hard shell exterior and velocity. It needs neither for its designed for plunging fires role where the angle of fall enables it to defeat most structural protection. However against a rebar concrete wall or structure the 120mm HE mortar would will just "bounce" off or more accurately point detonate on the outer surface and expend all its explosive energy on the outside. Will break many windows but not enter the structure and defeat the enemy inside.

Also because of its low velocity it has very high time of flights which make direct fires against anything over a few hundred metres away really a practice of indirect fire against a target in sight. Which means high dispersion, low accuracy and results achieved through battery fire or expensive guided munitions (PGMM).

BTW: I think that the author just wanted to paint other AFV than tanks in a dramatic fashion. :

No it was a specific part of the Soviet's artillery tactics. They training their Regimental and Divisional guns extensively in direct fire. Unlike Western armies that are extremely sensitive to losing an artillery gun the Russians/Soviets were never afraid to lose a gun or two in direct fire battles as long as it tore the arm of the enemy.

 

[Firn]

Note that I pointed out that this type of mortar is a excellent complement to other DF assets able to hold it's own against almost all threads in a MOUT environment where the engagement ranges for DF are typically low.

While there isn't much info on how the AMOS achieves it's long ranges of 12-13km it is safe to say that it is able to shoot it's bombs with high charges and the long barrel north of 400m/s. This is roughly 200-300m/s slower than a light 105mm howitzer (a world behind a tankgun) and should certainly more than enough for the selfdefense/DF support in MOUT in almost instances with good accuracy and low dispersion when the need arises.

The vast majority of buildingwalls in a typical European city is certainly not able to withstand a 120 HE and if we take the experience in the cited FM it will penetrate deep into a building even with it's relative soft mantle. Hardened bunkers, strong concrete walls and fortified positions are of course left to the plentiful MBTs in the front, CAS or SP artillery guns

Soviet doctrine was heavily influenced by the experiences in WWII and with the plenty of SP guns with comparable large calibers available to the Red Army they made ruthless sound use of it. As waylander pointed out the PzH2000 was provided with the ability to be used decently for DF when needed, even if it should operate 10-15km behind the frontline.

 

[Tony Williams]

I think that there are two separate issues here.

In a high-tech hot war, against an opponent with artillery-locating radar, the high burst rate of fire of AMOS could be very useful, allowing the vehicle to get a lot of rounds in the air before running from the inevitable counterbattery fire.

However, a turreted manually-loaded mortar could also be a useful general purpose LAFV weapon in more limited warfare such as Iraq. Compared with a high-velocity direct-fire gun, you get (for the same weight) a bigger and more effective HE shell, a much higher angle of fire (useful for engaging snipers in high buildings as well as dropping bombs on targets concealed from line-of-sight view), more compact ammo for a bigger supply, a wider choice of natures (smoke and flares as well as HE), and a shorter barrel (better in urban areas). Guided gun-fired missiles like LAHAT might be usable against certain targets, so could the anti-armour STRIX guided bomb. And several different GPS/laser-guided mortar bombs are being developed. All in all, it could be an extremely useful system. And you really don't need the space-eating complications of automatic loading (which would in any case complicate switching the ammunition natures).

Several years ago BAE showed a couple of vehicles at DSEi fitted with their manually-loaded, turreted, breech-loading mortar, a Warrior MICV and an 8x8 Piranha III. I took the following photos of them (the final one shows the Piranha interior):

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/PICT0278.jpg

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/PICT0218.jpg

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/PICT0217.jpg

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/PICT0216.jpg

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website