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

[Firn]

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).

I think you summed it up very nicely.

A improved LAHAT (perhaps with the features of the Spike) with a long range due to dual-propulsion could be a neat addition, especially in a high-intensity conflict. It gives the mortar unit the ability to launch a low-observable projectile as the guided flight path makes an exact target location by firefinders impossible. Helicopters and (very) slow fixed-wing aircraft might also be engaged. The only problem might be that complex systems like AMOS might not be able to fire them :vamp

 

[Firn]

I gave lately a look at the Finnish indirect fire support "environment" to detect what arguments support the purchase of the 24 AMOS Patria MFV.

First of all mortars are traditionally well regarded by the Finns who relied on a great part on their mortars to compensate for their gross weakness in Artillery. This mirrors somewhat the German experience in the later years who were increasingly used their cheaply and easily produced and yet effective Mortars and Nebelwerfer as their main indirect fire support.

They have still a rather huge amount of artillery, enough to outfit the current Dutch armed forces 30 times over

Note - this is NOT a joke. It is simply the reality as surprising it sounds.

Most of them are old, towed and of soviet origin but should still pack a mighty punch. Some more modern FA of finnish origin is also available. There is a btl of fairly modern, only 20 years old soviet SPH with a 152mm howitzer. Four reserve btl have the even older 122 2S1 SPH.

While I don't have any insight into the mind of the responsibles I guess that the 24 Patria AMOS MFV will form two heavy mortar companies with two batteries. They will be a kind of SPM with a rather short range but a very high amount of fire coupled with a wide arrange of ammo among them things like Strix. Guess that they will replace the old SPH in the active role.

To offset the loss in range and the limited role of the mortars in CB the MLRS seem like the perfect solution and are perhaps one factor in the decision to buy the AMOS SPM. I bet the Dutch government was happy to have no longer the hassle to operate this nasty and brute machines of war.

The Jaeger brigade of the Northern Command operate a 120mm mortar from a Bandvagn-alike vehicle, interesting. It always surprises me how often one thinks this would be a creative and intelligent thing and then discovers that somebody else did it before. An excellent and cost-effective choice.


All in all an interesting solution for a specific situation and in times of war they can rely on the reserves and their large amounts of howitzers to help out.

 

[Firn]

There seems also be alot going on when it comes to mortar rounds

- XM984: Extended range (Rocket assisted) and DPICM
- Thermobaric warhead

But things were also cancelled;

- PGMM: Laser-guided mortar rounds with various warheads

Old goodies:

- Strix: IR guided mortar round
- all the usual stuff (Illumination, HE, smoke, etc)

 

[Waylander]

As you mention smoke.
Does anybody knows if there are IR-smoke rounds for mortars in use with a country out there?

 

[Wooki]

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).



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.

Good points but if you modify existing 120mm tank munitions, then you are good to go. e.g. MPAT with a velocity of around 900m/s.

We looked at this about 5 years ago and the modification to the whole range of munitions except the APFSDS was relatively easy to do.

You do need to make a new line, and AMOS is not up to snuff. A better breach loader would need to be made IMHO. But the difficulties in creating a direct fire system are not as great as one would think at first pass.

The most useful application is the AC130 and being able to fire guided munitions from that platform without resorting to something like BAT. Straight away you are going to have to mod the munition so that it doesn't slide out of the tube when loaded and from there the thought process continues towards existing tank munitions and so on.

cheers


w

 

[Firn]

As you mention smoke.
Does anybody knows if there are IR-smoke rounds for mortars in use with a country out there?

Rheinmetall makes one. Perfect for against an enemy with IR sensor. Still against insurgents as the Taliban a normal smoke round is of course far better - it makes a one-way mirror and allows the friendlies to use their big toys.

It seems also that there is a tendency to give the mortars overall greater penetration power:

This innovative ammunition family, teamed with a newly developed propellant system, is characterized by long range and high precision. Optimized for semi-hard targets, the HE round features significantly improved fragmentation and – equipped with a suitable fuse – is capable of penetrating reinforced concrete in accordance with STANAG 4536. The explosive filling is insensitive and exceeds the requirements set out in STANAG 4170.

Overall I have a hard time to understand why the penetration power of an lobbed round is intrinsically higher than the one off an direct one.

Usually we will use the more direct fire as an option for relative close ranges, let us say 50-400m. To achieve a relative flat ballisic curve and short flight time we will use a high charge to get more than 400 m/s. Let as assume that the target has a walls an floors of the same construction and thickness. It is easy to see that the longer the range and the slower the round the greater the chance of a deflection and the higher the relative thickness of the wall. In other words the shorter the range and the higher the speed the relatively thinner gets the wall unitil the right angle is achieved.

As Abraham pointed out the thin outer case is not well suited for direct penetration, because it maximises the HE load. But this is a deliberate (and good) design choice. A heavy "Bunkerfaust" or a hardened (even perhaps subcaliber) round with a delayed explosion could solve a lot of this problems. The first round would also be an interesting option against medium and light AFV, should the dire need arise.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOyyMwD61DU"]Bunkerfaust[/ame]


So to penetrate a strong wall it is best to hit it with an vector as close as possible to the right angle in both dimensions. To penetrate the typically flat roof of a bunker it also shot be hit as close to the right angle as possible. This time the second dimension is largely irrelevant which makes things generally easier.

A "Bunkerfaust" mortar round would achieve the maximal performance even with just enough speed fired from a very high angle (70-80°) to hit the target. A classic mortar round however set to explode delayed profits greatly from increased speed coupled with a high trajectory. But there is of course a practical limit to it due to the possible angle of fire and the overall range. The higher the charge, the higher the speed, the higher the altitude and the longer the range reached. The quality of the casing is however also very imporant. Only a relative hard case will to profit from the high speed achieved by the high charge.

Not that even the the fastest hardened round comes even remotely close to such momentum and payload.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOoTucNNQ2A&feature=related"]Bunker buster[/ame]


So a sufficiently hard standard round penetrates hardened roofs best with a plunging fire from a round shot as high as possible. Even with an elevation of 85° degrees this makes it best against targets at medium an long distances.

On the other hand a sufficiently hard standard round penetrates hardened walls best with the flattest possible trajectory. Against a target at even level this means the higher the charge and the higher the speed and the shorter the distance the better.

Thanks to smaller deacceleration by drag (and gravitation) the hardened round will thus penetrate walls at close distance better than equally thick roofs at medium-long distances.


Hm this let me think about the usefullness of a "hardened" mulit-fuze mortar round. Rheinmetall seems to have addressed this issue at least partly. I really wonder how such a round would compare to a "Bunkerfaust" one against hardened walls. Against very hard ones it seems that the second one has the advantage. But against relative weak walls the first one should be better. Anyway a interesting topic. Mortars seem to become more and more useful.

Of course the power of the 155mm howitzer remains unmatched in direct fire:

c. ) Target Effects. 155-mm direct fire has a devastating effect against masonry construction and field fortifications. Smaller artillery pieces (105-mm) are normally towed and, therefore, are difficult to employ in the direct-fire mode. Their target effects are much less destructive than the larger caliber weapons.

(1) 155-mm howitzers. The 155-mm self-propelled howitzer offers its crew mobility and limited protection in urban areas. It is effective due to its rate of fire and penetration. HE rounds can penetrate up to 38 inches of brick and nonreinforced concrete. Projectiles can penetrate up to 28 inches of reinforced concrete with considerable damage beyond the wall. HE rounds fuzed with concrete-piercing fuzes provide an excellent means of penetrating strong reinforced concrete structures. One round can penetrate up to 46 inches. Five rounds are needed to create a 1.5-meter breach in a 1-meter thick wall. About 10 rounds are needed to create such a breach in a wall 1.5 meters thick. Superquick fuzing causes the rubble to be blown into the building, whereas delay fuzing tends to blow the rubble outward into the street.

The effectivness of weapons in Urban combat..

But the 120mm isn't shabby either - well, maybe to the OPFOR

(3) 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 impacting 10 feet away. The effect of 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, but it 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.

Note that this refers to indirect fire with "soft" rounds and fuzes - the effects are far greater with hardened ones. Even more so with direct fire, as we have learned.



Ah, the vanity of destruction...

 

[Firn]

Because it is for quite some time my last day here I will quickly write up some other thoughts.

Guided mortar rounds​

There are basically five sensors/systems used to guide a projectile into a target which can also be combined and fuzed. I will devide them further according the their nature.


a) Radar:

(i) projectile active; observer TA; fire-and-forget
(ii) projectile passive, observer TA + active
(iii) pojectile passive, target active; mostly fire-and-forget
(iv) a combination

​

b) Infrared:

(i) projectile passive; observer TA; fire-and-forget​

c) Laser

(i) projectile passive, observer TA + active
(ii) projectile passive, target active; (largely theoretic)
(iii) projectile active (LADAR), observer TA + partly active
(iv) a combination
​

d) Manual guidance

(i) projectile passive, observer TA + active​

e) GPS

(i) projectile passive, observer TA + for moving targets active​

f) INS

(i) projectile passive, observer TA + for moving targets active​

Legend:

TA= Target Aquisition
Observer= The observer/shooter. Can be one or two entities
active= An external operator/ A human must be mostly active during the process.

Overview
​

Here is a five year old overview.

Generally there is the tendency to fuze two or more sensors to enhance the capabilities of the ammunition. Especially the combination of the qualities of the GPS (and partly INS) with one sensor of a group consisting of Laser, Radar or IR sensors, both active and passive seems sensible. The manual guidance with an Man-in-the-Loop capability is far harder to achieve than in ATGM as a spooling fibre-optical cable is at least for breech-loaded ones usually not suitable. For front-loaded mortars it might still be practical. A radio transmission between the MitL and the projectile can be disturbed rather easily.

Two interesting concepts​

a) The Strix:

It has a IR passive guidance, which make it a fire-and-forget round after the launch and basic data. Perfectly suited to destroy mobile AFV with the help of a passive forward observer. Should be also well suited fin combination with a fire finder to Counter-battery work against camouflaged "hot" tubes and guns. A integrated GPS would speed the process up and increase the utiliy against scooting shooters.


b) The Fireball

It combines GPS and semi-active laser guidance which make it very flexible, especially with an proper FO which also can paint the target.

It allows a quick launch into a basket from which the FO can help indirectly guide it very precisely into the target. This process enables the FO to greatly reduces his "active" painting with good coordination In long-range shots possibly from 30-40 seconds or more to roughly five or even less. This also makes it in combination with an FO well suited even for dangerous mobile targets.

The GPS provides also a backup for bad weather and a lack of an FO or a "painter". It is still able to do help with CB work at long ranges - especially with bomblets - and to engage static or supressed targets under all condition with good accuracy.

Some further ideas and thoughts​

a) Situational Awerness and Quick Reactions

Fit every MFV with a sniper detection system like the Boomerang or muzzle flash detector. Add a seperate periscope/light RWS with an MG or HMG for the commander with good optics and IR. The seperate wide-view optic is imporant to allow an assistent gunner to get SA and search for the targets

Every shot taken at the MFV will get automatically geolocalized with the help of the GPS. Feed the information into the BMS (Battle management system) and into the sighting systems of the RWS and the commander. This helps to get the eyes on the sources of fire really quick.

A highly sensible "sniper location system" which relies on the acoustic signatures should also be able to detect other sounds. The humming of a tank engine, the quick moving rotor of an helicopter or the rattle of the tracks on hard ground should all be sensed by it when the MFV stands still. The directional microphones should get at the least a rough bearing on it and enable the user to rapidly investigate likely point of origine. This could help a lot to get helicopters down from the sky, as such a system could pinpoint with far greater ease than most sound emitters. This would be the time to throw a LAHAT in the mortar or to activate the RBS 70. Then scan the suspect segment of sky a keep the laser brush ready to paint the target.


b) Hunter-Killer or RWS-Mortar

The MFV should be equipped with the a high quality RWS atop of the turret with two main configurations, GMG or HMG. It should have excellent optics (IR and day) with good optical zoom (4-16), Laser range finder and the ability to geolocate the target and mark it at night with IR and a laser beam.

With a ballistic computer providing an accurate firing solution, possibly even while driving already the first round should be spot on. This way you will be able to acquire, identify and engage the target speedily, call in arty and air really fast and easily mark the target for CAS or fire support at night. The direct laser painting allows for great precision against directly visible and moving targets with mortar rounds like the Fireball.

(i) The GMG RWS is ideal for quick and deadly suppression. Plenty of different rounds available for that one, so something for all the tastes. It has also some indirect capability too. It might be a bit over the top in combination with a 120mm mortar, so a HMG or MG might be the better choice.
​

(ii) The HMG version is the "sniper" and can reach out a long way. It has the same "basic" package. A interesting addition might be here not an ATGM but the BOLIDE of the RBS-70. It is a Mach 2 laser beam riding SAM which could be guided by the already mostly existing hardware and some (complicated) software updates. Alternatively - and perhaps far better - the whole manpad kit could be used as the sensor suite for the RWS.

Of course this SAM works bests as integrated node of a larger AD network. However it should already be alone a great danger to any CAS support in the vicinity. An alternative would be both the Stinger and the Mistral. But in the current environment it is an unnecessary addition​

Overall the "hunter-killer" capability of the hunting RWS with some teeth and the killing twin-mortar. The networked sensor and FCS should enable to get rounds very fast downrange following external or internal input, indirect or direct fire.


c) Protecting this golden goose

Look into an active defense suite, like the AMAP-T, as it may be just a matter of time unitil the MFV has a nasty encounter with a modern AT missile or round. It seems to be likely and sensible addition of almost any AFV. It may also increase SA by helping to detect the source of the incoming fire. In this context a smoke launcher unit could be useful. Perhaps a softkill system also might be of interest, but is also pricey.



d) So a great variety of rounds with many good uses

Strix (even better with GPS), Fireball, GPS-guided rounds and unguided ones, canister with various payloads and unitary warhead, Rocket Assisted and not, full-spectrum smoke and only normal one, IR illuminations and perhaps chemical... the present list is very long and the future on will be even longer. And that makes it such a great and versatile weapons system.

Conclusion
​

As one can see a lot of pricey, yet intersting upgrades and rounds are around. Some are overall very cost-effective, some only in certain situations, some perhaps not enough.





Ah, the vanity of destruction...

 

[Tony Williams]

HESH has a good reputation for demolishing walls and is used for that purpose, fired at quite low velocities, from Canadian 105mm and British 120mm tank guns in the Middle East. I also note that the new US Stryker MGS 105mm gun will have a modernised HEP (US for HESH) as one of the natures. As far as I know no-one has made a HESH mortar round, but I don't see why it shouldn't be possible, and effective.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

 

[Waylander]

Wasn't the rifling on a rifled gun considerable helpfull when one wants to employ a HESH round?
IIRC the spin of the round helps the squash warhead to perform.
That's the reason why there is no HESH for smoothbore guns.

As mortars are usually also smoothbore I would think one would run into the same problems.

 

[Tony Williams]

Wasn't the rifling on a rifled gun considerable helpfull when one wants to employ a HESH round?
IIRC the spin of the round helps the squash warhead to perform.

I have heard that mentioned on discussion forums, but never seen any evidence for it.

In WW2 the RAF did develop some small squash-head anti-tank bombs to be dropped from fighter-bombers, which suggests they didn't regard that as a problem at that time (the project was dropped, but for other reasons).

My understanding as to why you find HESH only in rifled guns is that it is used as a long-range general-purpose round, effective against homogenous armour, bunkers, etc well beyond accurate APFSDS range. That's the way the BA uses in it Challengers, which scored the world's longest anti-tank kill with HESH.

The problem with full-calibre, low-velocity fin-stabilised ammo is that while OK at 1,000m or so (for anti-tank HEAT, for instance) it is much less so at longer ranges. Fin-stabilisation is inherently less accurate than spin-stabilisation, and with a shell lobbed high into the air, and plenty of time for any crosswinds to act on those fins, it becomes increasingly inaccurate (relative to rifled shells) as the range extends.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

 

[Firn]

Lessons Relearned and Learned

I just googled to get some information about HESH in Afghanistan and found some excellent material. To paraphrase Clausewitz, it helps too keep the flowers of theory close to experience, their porper soil.



Canadian Armor in Afghanistan

Since May 2007, the tank squadron has fought almost constantly alongside Canadian and Afghan infantry in close combat with the Taliban. Supported by the artillery, combat engineers, attack aviation and fast air, mechanized combat teams from the 2 RCR BG have achieved decisive victories against insurgents in the Howz-e- Madad, Nalgham and Sangsar areas of Zhari District, where vineyards and imposing compounds render wheeled vehicle movement particularly difficult. Leopard tank crews have used extensively the 105 mm High Explosive Squash Head (HESH) round to eliminate insurgents attempting to attack dismounted soldiers. More importantly, tank rollers and ploughs have continued to mitigate risk to coalition soldiers by clearing routes of pressure-plate detonated IEDs, while providing intimate support and a breaching capability to dismounted infantry companies. A testament to the tremendous contribution tanks are making to counter-insurgency operations and their high demand throughout the Canadian AO, A Squadron has routinely been split into troop-sized elements or less and attached to each of the infantry companies. This decentralized employment of armour and extremely high temperatures has strained the sustainment concept and serviceability of the tanks, while dispersing the breaching assets integral to the sub-unit. The impact of this squadron has been felt as far west as the Helmand border, and north towards Ghorak and Shah Wali Kot.

More on the utility of a big gun with the proper arguments sticking out of a highly mobile and armored AFV aka MBT right where it needs to be.

Rather, our enemy finds sanctuary in grape-drying huts and compounds with concrete-like walls measuring over a meter in thickness. Prior to the deployment of the Leopard tank, massive volumes of 25 mm fire from the LAVs achieved limited results against these structures, often requiring the BG to resort to the use of aerial bombardment or risk the deployment of dismounted soldiers forward to affect a breach with anti-tank weapons or demolitions. One 105 mm HESH round from the Leopard C2 can punch a hole in excess of five by five meters through a grape-drying hut or compound wall, penetrating structures with reduced collateral damage to surrounding infrastructure and less risk to our dismounted soldiers.

The whole paper is IMHO excellent and especially of interest for old and young tankers alike. Another great take on the many issues of combined arms in Afghanistan is the following one. It also deserves a close look.



Lessons learned form the use of Tanks in ROTO 2

When channelled in defiles and surrounded by walls or marijuana fields three metres high, the tanks lose their ability to fire at a distance and to move the turret. Just sweeping arcs of fire without destroying all the walls is the greatest challenge for the crews. We simply used the Stab Elevation Override to allow the gunner to observe, but generally speaking, the Stab stays off and the tank commander aims the gun between the walls and the dwellings. We have noted that sweeping the arcs, even if the gunner can see nothing, frightens the insurgents and discourages them from firing on us. With the Leopard 2, we used the tank commander’s periscope to observe when necessary. Since the barrel is approximately two metres longer than that of the Leopard C2, it was practically impossible to have the gunner constantly sweep the arcs. In some areas, the tanks are used more like bunkers for the dismounted troops than for their firepower. Nevertheless, in the event of contact, we did not hesitate to make room and expand our arcs of fire. In order to address the risks caused by lack of space, the crews had mounted their C8s on the turret (one pointing forward and one pointing backwards), with the tank commander’s 9-mm on the hatch and they had two hand grenades ready for throwing. In spite of everything, the best defence for the tanks in closed terrain remains the presence of infantry on the ground and a LAV III behind them.

Just some of many interesting points.

For the troop, all our engagements have been at distances of between 75 and 600 m. We have had some engagements at over 1000 m, but they occurred while the tanks were in firing position at the forward observation base (FOB) or when we were conducting observation in support of the infantry coys....

However, when we advance in complex terrain, the Taliban hide at between 75 and 300 m and most of the time they fired at us before we were able to observe them. We could see them because of the smoke or flash from their weapons. They observed our guns and waited until we aim them in another direction to fire. The advent of the Leopard 2 and its independent periscope greatly enhanced our detection capability and reduced the number of hits on the tank. We also received the canister shell at the end of our tour. Although we did not have a chance to try it in combat, we already know that it will discourage any attempt to hit us on the flanks at close range. Sometimes the insurgents launched a rocket from between two marijuana plants and disappeared. With a canister shell, we will be able to respond by firing in the direction from which the round came and kill or wound the hidden RPG crew. Following range trials, we have established that the lethal distance is approximately 400 m. The 120 mm HEAT rounds have produced excellent results in comparison to the 105 mm HESH round.

I only took out part of the things relevant to the topic and our discussion. The two papers indicate just how effective a well an Armored Mortar Fighting Vehicle (AMFV) with the right tools and equipment would be.



New rounds for the AMFV:


a) HEAT-MP

While enemy AFV are of no concern in Afghanistan and never should be the engaged without dire need directly by the MFV such a round would be overall a fine addition. It should endanger head-on any AFV short of an MBT and be a great and affordable allrounder. If the smaller, far lighter and slower warhead of the RPG-29 can cause concern, the 120mm mortar HEAT-MP should too...


b) HESH

A great wallbuster with little fragmentation flying sideways and back towards the AFV and friendlies. The slower spin of a 120mm mortar round fired out of a smoothbore barrel might influence (among other variables as speed) the "squashing" but it should at the very least be in the vicinity of the 105mm HESH, and "5x5m holes" sound right to. A perfect match with the AMFV, IMHO


c) Canister

Seems that the Canadians and Danes are eager on them and thing them perfectly suited for the environment. A Tank gun can launch them with far greater speed (> 800 m/s, my poor guess) and it seems to be that the lethal distance is (at least) around 400m. "Beehive rounds" accelerated by the106mm M40s of the Ontos reached roughly 500 m/s making them even with the thin armor very effective as support weapons.

The 20" wide tracks of the 9-ton Ontos would allow it to go on the soft soils surrounding the rice paddies of Vietnam. They both served as bunker busters. Both vehicles lessened the infantry's causalities by being close to the fight; and could be quickly deployed to overcome an enemy's fixed positions.

The Ontos carried the beehive round that sent out a hundred darts per firing to clean out a jungle of its enemy. There was no other weapon that could clear a jungle for a depth of a ¼ mile (400m) like the 106mm recoilless rifle using the beehive round.

The small darts or pellets loose speed very fast. With a muzzle velocitiy of roughly 350 m/s the AMFV should thus be with the type of canister tested by the Canadian at least be lethal to 250m. This round should give the AFV a lethal area suppression weapon with a focused cone of lethality unable to endanger enemies or civilians behind "Afghan concrete"




Thoughts


Overall the more I learn the more I like the concept of the AMFV, especially in a combined arms team. Beside the invaluable ability to deliver quickly devastating plunging fire with so many round-fuzes (bomblets AB, HE PD or delayed one....) combinations and the ability to use all the neat guided precision rounds (Strix, FireBall..) it can be deadly precise and effective up close with the right rounds.

This "Assault mortar" with great SA (see my posts above) it can (and will) also be in a close firefight and will thus be able to play through the whole spectrum of firepower. At usual distances 75-600 every round in their arsenal can be very very accurate (high charge, "direct" fire) or very accurate (low charge, plunging fire). When not in a close firefight it can lend with staple rounds a helping hand of devastating power easily to seven klicks.

MBTs are still better to lead the rest on dangerous paths but such AMFV should be just like IFV close at hand.




P.S: A very good observation

A strong case can be made that Canadian tanks have actually reduced collateral damage in the Canadian AO. We know through experience that the more combat power we commit to a mission, the less kinetic that operation is likely to become.

This fits actually perfectly my interpretation of many an conflict. It is a great fallacy bring up the decreased willigness of insurgents or others in a great direct confrontations and conclude that "conventional force" and "firepower" is something somewhat somehow futile in such a war. It is a bit like asking a guy with a assault rifle to bring his knife to a gunfight and to ditch his rifle, because he has the advantage

 

[Waylander]

@Tony

In the past I didn't understand why there are only HESH rounds for rifled guns. Somebody explained it that way to me and it sounded as plausible as any answer I ever got.
But your example sounds convincing.

But in the end the question remains why there are no HESH rounds for smoothbore tank guns.
I think that modern programmable HE rounds make HESH rounds less important but in the past this was not the case.

@Firn
I read these articles before and they are very informative and show very well how valuable heavy AFVs can be in the different theaters of todays wars which don't resemble the fight for the fulda gap but nevertheless see the need for modern MBTs.

 

[Firn]

Comments


@ Waylander

Yes, the tanks were found to be useful in a lot of circumstances and were put to work in a lot of ways. The articles touched many very important aspects, among them vehicle recovery, movement in IED country, the importance of tank implements (dozer blades, ploughs...) on true MBTs, combined arms in different COIN operations.

One might add that the author of the second article was trained on the Leo II in Germany

But in the end the question remains why there are no HESH rounds for smoothbore tank guns.I think that modern programmable HE rounds make HESH rounds less important but in the past this was not the case.

The second article states that: "The 120 mm HEAT rounds have produced excellent results in comparison to the 105 mm HESH round."



Additional thoughts

A stabilized RWS with great optics (IR and visible light) atop of a turret seems to make great sense. Good magnifications seem to be a great asset. iseems A coaxial high quality 20-60x glass ( proven for spotting scopes) coupled with fine camera (possible electronic zoom) would be an amazing tool for TA and identification, both for the main gun and the RWS.

A stabilized panormic sight above the RWS would seems to make sense too. SA seems to be the key to turn the tables fast. A SDS (Sniper Detection systems) acoustic, optical or fused would greatly help with observation and TA, I wonder when they will make it on the MBT.

All in all a mortar capable of MRSI could do truly nasty things in the "killing hunter - scouting killer" configuration. A mix of 2-3 rounds arriving at the same time on different paths on chosen locations should be nasty. A "toubletab" of HESH or HESH-HE/HEAT would wreak havoc in most buildings. One to open a door in the thick outher wall and frag the area behind, the second to penetrate deeply and wreak havoc inside with a delayed explosion. There seem to be many good (bad) ways to use such a mortar.

Also it seems that the classic 4-men crew seems to be helpful in such complex situations, as so much is going on and SA is extremely important. Reading this papers you get the feeling that out there anywhere, anytime anybody has to keep watching. In the detached overwatch a combination of binos and sights puts every set of eyes to good use...


P.S: For dangerous combat operations in a cluttered and complex environment a "medium-heavy" armored troop consisting of 3 different types of AFV with a shared platform should be a powerful and sustainable combination. For example a CV90 troop built by 2 IFV (CV9030), 1 LBT (CV90120) and one MFV (CV90AMOS or NEMO) and equipped with light pioneer implements would be very versatile and powerful.

The 1 LBT would be replaced by a pair of ture MBT for high-intensity warfare. It would be supported by an armored troop with the same members. Overall I would think that the 1 LBT is a not so cost-effective solution when so many countires have good MBT. Most of them should be eqipped with pioneer implements. A "pioneer MBT" should also work at least in pairs to allow for a fast vehicle recovery.

P.P.S: A similar concept of a mixed group of 4-5 AFV (MBTs, BMPs, BTRs, ..) providing support (fire support, transport, overwatch...) was called bronegruppa. Perhaps my proposal is somehow related to and influenced by the prior reading of the book some years ago.

 

[Firn]

Additional readings



Firepower in limited war

A good read to place part of the topic in a broader context, by the 44th Commandant of the U.S. Army War College, Major General Scales.



Bear went over the mountain

The strategy and tactics employed by the insurgents and Counter-insurgents in the Soviet-Afghan war are still a worthwhile and telling read. A commented look from both sides is given by this classic.


Lessons in Mountain warfare

A tentative list of lessons learned, taken from the book above. Not a bad quick primer, but can of course not capture the richness of the book.


High Altitude Warfare: The Kargil conflict and the future

This paper is very interesting because it partly mirrored my own feelings when I read it and was helpful to think about my ex-trade in a broader way. It also convinced me even more of the necessity of heavy precise firepower in mountain warfare:


German Mountain Warfare - a WWII manual

The German view of Mountain warfare, 1944. I read it a long while ago, but still remember how the importance of well-coordinated precise and heavy firepower delivered by mortars and artillery was outlined. Fits well my very limited experience. Further it is interesting that during the war they heavily increased the oveall firepower and made it mortar platoons organic at the company level. All in all for all who don't know the difficulties of mountain warfare a still very relevant text.


The deadly Tulip

An analysis of the biggest mortar in town, lobbing 130kg heavy bombs where the commander needs them. The orignal Soviet "laser guided bomb".

 

[Tony Williams]

@Tony
But in the end the question remains why there are no HESH rounds for smoothbore tank guns.

I suspect it may be that the during the Cold War, tanks were primarily seen as tank destroyers rather than general-purpose fighting vehicles. Anti-armour performance was given priority over all else - otherwise smoothbore guns would never have been adopted at all, since rifled guns give better accuracy with a wider range of projectiles. It so happens that smoothbores work best with two different natures: APFSDS and HEAT. In both cases, rapid projectile spin is actually a nuisance - it disturbs the accuracy of APFSDS and disrupts the jet formation of HEAT. So smoothbore + APFSDS + HEAT = the best anti-armour combination.

Bearing in mind that tanks can't carry many rounds of big ammo, the number of types needs to be limited. And with HEAT on board, the case for HESH (or in fact conventional HE) was small. Things are changing now, of course.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

 

[Tony Williams]

The second article states that: "The 120 mm HEAT rounds have produced excellent results in comparison to the 105 mm HESH round."

That's very strange. I have in front of me an article in Jane's International Defence Review concerning a presentation to a conference on the Canadian armour experience in Afghanistan, which includes the following:

"...the 105mm HESH round being rated as better than the 120mm HEAT for wall-breaching."

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

 

[Firn]

Comments

That's very strange. I have in front of me an article in Jane's International Defence Review concerning a presentation to a conference on the Canadian armour experience in Afghanistan, which includes the following:

"...the 105mm HESH round being rated as better than the 120mm HEAT for wall-breaching."

I quoted the article directly. Anyway it could be just reflect the feel on the ground that the 120mm HEAT of the Leo II did the job good enough in comparision to the 105mm HESH of the Leo I. The HESH/HEP has - when available - always been the choice for demolitions and wall-breaching. There is certainly some logic behind that. A good example is the M728 CEV with the 165mm gun . The design of an effective HESH seems to be overall a near perfect fit for a 120mm turreted mortar. The smoothbore barrel and the low velocity would allow for a very thin skin and thus a high relative amount of HE - in the best tradition of mortar bombs. This should also help to keep fragmentation on wrong side rather low.



Additional thoughts on the MFV:


A coaxial HMG like the .50 would complement the main armament of an MFV just as well as the one of a MBT. This gives the vehicle an important tool to engage with the main sight and FCS fleeting targets in situation where a 120mm round would not fit the ROE or tactical situation. With greatly differing characteristics the should form a symbiosis.

A relative light and compact mortarturret would also make a stabilzed RWS with a GMG and/or an MG a more attractive options for lighter platforms. It would also be easier to protect and armor.

 

[Waylander]

I suspect it may be that the during the Cold War, tanks were primarily seen as tank destroyers rather than general-purpose fighting vehicles. Anti-armour performance was given priority over all else - otherwise smoothbore guns would never have been adopted at all, since rifled guns give better accuracy with a wider range of projectiles. It so happens that smoothbores work best with two different natures: APFSDS and HEAT. In both cases, rapid projectile spin is actually a nuisance - it disturbs the accuracy of APFSDS and disrupts the jet formation of HEAT. So smoothbore + APFSDS + HEAT = the best anti-armour combination.

Bearing in mind that tanks can't carry many rounds of big ammo, the number of types needs to be limited. And with HEAT on board, the case for HESH (or in fact conventional HE) was small. Things are changing now, of course.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

Yeah, the focus was defenitely more on tank on tank warfare but in the end at least the US has used their tanks often enough for other thinks than pure tank plinking on the past 50 years.
And as I understand they were very fond of their HEP and WP rounds during these instances.
For an army like the german one such a focus during the cold war is way more understandable than for the US Army.
But hey, the US don't field a proper 120mm HE or HEP till these days and they are in Iraq since 2003...

@Firn
Your idea of a mixed unit of different CV90s is defenitely interesting but IMHO is only really feasible if the enemy is ill equipped with AT-weapons (like most of the fighters in A-stan and Iraq or the Hamas in Gaza) but would be of more limited use against opponents with access to heavy AT-weaponry. Active and passive protection systems need to be implemented to reduce casualties (Which is very important in anything but an all out war) otherwise the CV90 family, even in it's Mrk. III incarnation, might be a little bit too lightly armored to go in the infight.

 

[Firn]

@Firn
Your idea of a mixed unit of different CV90s is defenitely interesting but IMHO is only really feasible if the enemy is ill equipped with AT-weapons (like most of the fighters in A-stan and Iraq or the Hamas in Gaza) but would be of more limited use against opponents with access to heavy AT-weaponry. Active and passive protection systems need to be implemented to reduce casualties (Which is very important in anything but an all out war) otherwise the CV90 family, even in it's Mrk. III incarnation, might be a little bit too lightly armored to go in the infight.

MBTs cause a great strain on the support in many aspects. This is especially true when you want to disperse them as much as possible, because they are so effective. But the maintenance poses rather strict limits to a too wide dispersal. While 2 tanks make mostly from a tactical POV (mutal support, redundancy, vehicle recovery, different pioneer implements) the support forces a concentration of roughly half the squadron - 6 tanks IIRC in one base.

But this leaves in this case most of the Canadian infantry units with their LAV III without a heavily armored vehicle with a great SA and a big gun. The easiest path would be to deploy another, well supporte unit of MBTs. This unit is expensive to maintain and support and might not fit the area of operation. A LAV III with a gun might be a very good solution and the Stryker MGS proved its worth in Iraq (also with canister rounds) but it is a vehicle with a much more narrow focus. Especially for smaller militaries a MBT is overall the much better choice which complements the other assets better.

A MFV on the platform of the mechanized/armored infantry would act as an almost full-spectrum fire support asset in combination with the specific IFV and other vehicles. MBTs can be attached when needed and if supportable. Close enemy fighters can be canistered. Dug in ones killed by lobbing airbursting HE. Ones hiding behind a wall or in a compound eliminated by HESH or/and HEAT. In short the technology and creativity of humankind enable all kind of deadly attacks.

There might be one light (LAV III, Stryker) and one heavy (Puma-class, MBT-platform) MFV. Both behave differently and according to the specifc METT-TC. Thus the combinations and procedures between the various AFV will of course vary widly. In some situation a light MFV might be used as the tip of the speer, in some others the heavy MFV might hang well back behind MBTs.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgn1nhUEgo8"]The 120 mm M1028[/ame]

Here are further informations on it, here some about the Beehive.


The vanity of destruction...

 

[Waylander]

I totally agree that a MBT class vehicle causes more maintenance requirements than a wheeled class of vehicle like for example all the incanrnations of the Piranha family of vehicles.

This difference is not nearly as big when one looks at the maintenance requirements of a modern tracked IFV and a MBT. There the difference actually is quite small.

So I would adopt two families of vehicles. One being a lighter wheeled vehicle (Like the Piranha III or IV) and one a heavy IFV or even a MBT as a base for different kinds of vehicles (Puma as a minimum or Merkava Mk.IV/Namer).

This would give an army the ability to deploy all the needed assets without causing too much strain on the logistical chain as there are basically just two families of vehicles. According to the area of operations and the mission the army could deploy the ideal mix of heavy and light vehicles.

But in the end such an approach is only possible for bigger (richer) armies out there while the small ones have to work with what they have.
And a MBT with attachable MOUT packages beats every opponent in it's versatility when one just has the money and manpower for one vehicle of this class.