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

[Firn]

Tanks in the cities

Supports very strongly the case for a heavy MCV or mortar-armed MBT - but then again this is no longer a surprise.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the indirect capabilites of the heavy mortars:

To compensate for the lack of smoke, the Israelis used mortars for suppressive fires. Mortars were favored for their psychological effect and high angle of fire that allowed their use in built-up areas. However, the 60mm and the 81mm weapons, common in infantry formations, could not penetrate the upper roofs of the modern buildings. Conversely, the heavier Soviet-made 120mm in the hands of the Syrians and Palestinians could penetrate Israeli-held buildings with ease.42

 

[Firn]

It is btw very interesting how much the Marines appreciated the tiny and badly armored Ontos in the jungle and the brutal street fighting mentioned in the article above. It seems that the nimble mobility combined with the rapidly available firepower in form of a mighty 6x105mm firestrike proved to be an excellent asset in the narrow streets where the enemy bravely resisted the Marines. The HE, WP and BH (beehive/canister) rounds all had their (gruesome) uses.

The ability to put down a devastating direct firestrike seems thus also be of great importance and would perhaps validate the use of a vehicle fitted with the AMOS.

 

[Firn]

Tanks and Bombers

Ten tank myths

Based on a completely unscientifi c survey of Australian media reporting, academic and pseudo-academic writing about the tank purchase, it appears that the ten most widely held myths about the tank are these:

1. Tanks are old technology.
2. Tanks are primarily intended for killing other tanks.
3. Tanks are primarily intended for high-intensity warfare.
4. All tanks are basically the same.
5. Tanks are very expensive.
6. Attack helicopters have assumed the role of tanks in modern war.
7. Infantry bunker-busting weapons can do the job of the tank.
8. Tanks send an unacceptable political message.
9. Tanks are unsuited to the terrain of Australia and the Asia–Pacific.
10. Tanks are difficult to deploy outside Australia by ship or aircraft .


Since these myths are sometimes exploited in support of arguments about
Australian strategy and capability, each is worth exploring in detail.

A excellent analysis of the most common myths. For example about 1#.

A 2002 study by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation found that attacks on bunker systems in Vietnam by Australian infantry and artillery without tanks only succeeded in 65 per cent of cases and involved significant Australian casualties. When tanks were present, the success rate climbed to 95 per cent while the ratio of friendly to enemy casualties was six times lower than in attacks without tanks. The study’s authors concluded that ‘armour made a major contribution to the effectiveness of attacks, both in terms of lives saved and increased chance of success.

It is perhaps once again not surprising that a 120m mortar instead of an gun would have been in a great many cases at least been equally effective in the direct support role.

BTW: There are two articles form the 70ies about tanks and armoured warfare which are quite interesting at the end of the journal.

 

[IPA35]

What units would be equipped with these kind of vehicle mounted mortars (say AMOS)?

Independent mortar companies like the ones currently operating towed 120mm's or field artillery units?
Or as a part of a cavalry unit?

 

[Firn]

What units would be equipped with these kind of vehicle mounted mortars (say AMOS)?

Independent mortar companies like the ones currently operating towed 120mm's or field artillery units?
Or as a part of a cavalry unit?

It would depend of course a lot on the platform and the formation it operates in. For example a light Mortar carrier like the Wiesel 2 operates of course in the heavy company of a jaeger battalion.

On the other hand an AFV with the chassis of a Leopard and a well-armored mortar turret (AMOS, or another turret, perhaps closely based on the turret of the Leopard) would compose a heavy indirect/direct fire company in the Panzer battalions. Ideally the Panzergrenadier units would have such a MAFV on the chassis of the Puma, but an Mortar Leopard would also work quite well. From a pragmatic point of view a stronger artillery battalion would be the easier solution.

But overall I think that the 1.Panzer has all in all a sufficient amount of artillery and indirect fire support assets.

 

[Firn]

The 120 mm smoothbore mortar has got a lot of attention in reason times by the designers of guided projectile.

Raytheon markets now a new mortar round it codeveloped with IMI as the "Raytheon Company: Missile Systems DAGGER". I'm not sure if it is the same round as the one presented here.

 

[Firn]

A newa 120mm mortar guidance kit won a contract for the U.S. army.

This kit replaces the standard fuze and would allow the use of pretty much all the existing bombs, guiding them with GPS through an array of movable fins to achieve an accuracy of less then 10m CEP. at all ranges.


Firn