ARTILLERY: Marine Mortar Replaces Howitzer

StrategyPage.com ^ | January 16, 2004

[U S Army EOD]

And we are shooting at a bunker manned by three guys with AK47's?

[archy]

Direct fire seems advertised with this thing. And it's needed. Sometimes. Sure, our recent wars have been "chases" across deserts inside trucks and APC's/M-2's against a retreating enemy.

My battery in the Gulf War got in a direct fire shootout with some Iraqi armored cars and MLRS, so its not entire out of fashion yet.

See the accounts of the taking of Metz, and of Patton's Third Army's procedures for clearing towns house-to-house when it was impossible or impractical to bypass them.

The single most useful tool for putting a new doorway not covered by enemy fire or boobytraps in an existing structure was direct fire from the 155 SP guns accompanying the Infantry, also useful should a sudden stray enemy tank or armored car make an appearance, or should countersniper fire be required.

Now that the M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle is out of service, along with its 165mm demolition gun, previously useful for breeching wire entanglements, walls and urban structures, there's really nothing else quite suitable for the task. the Israelis are considering direct-fire 160mm mortars, but even 120mm main gun fire is ineffectual at such tasks- the tank rounds penetrate too well, with minimal effects on the occupants.

[RatSlayer]

Actually, I think that link tended to support my case.

Many of the problems with CAS are real but solvable. However when your howitzers are 100 Km behind the lines waiting to be moved forward, they are useless. This was very evident in Iraq, where the artillery was left in the dust by the spearheads.

Towed artillery batteries are also very suseptible to CNB weapons. So instead the Pentagon buys enormous, heavy, SPA weapons that have CNB protection, but these are even more difficult to get into a theater than towed artillery.

That is why I think these new mortars will be a good thing, IF they travel with the spearheads then the troops will have some heavy weapons support when the CAS is late to the fight.

[XJarhead]

Well, if you've gotta go back to Patton's 3rd Army in Metz in 1944, its obviously not something that happens too often. And if such as situation should ever arise again, you'd have the towed howitzers. Just because they are GS artillery by TO doesn't mean that can't perform direct support if assigned to that mission.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Sure.

But think about your own experience.

How many Pentagon "think tanks" and "operational analysis" wargames would place a MLRS group (theirs OR ours!) under direct fire from an enemy mobile group of infantry, Humvees/jeeps/APC's?

It happened!

Sure, it wasn't "supposed" to happen. Those things (OURS and THEIRS!) are supposed to be protected behind miles of "front-line" defenses .....

But it happened.

[XJarhead]

No weapons system is perfect in every environment. Towed artillery has difficulty in rougher terrain. And does the fact that MLRS aren't any good in a direct fire shootout mean that we shouldn't have any MLRS? Our M198's weren't doing much against those tanks. Maybe SP mortars would have been able to scoot a bit better. As it was, we were stuck.

Or maybe think about the artillery raids we did into Kuwait before the ground war kicked off. We did those with towed howitzers, which obviously caused a problem. Guys got killed in when one truck/guy combo tipped. If they were in SP mortars, they would have been far more effective for shoot/scoot missions.

The SP's are a nice element to add to the fire support package. They are light enough to get in theater easily, and far more mobile once they get their with towed. Better to have a mix, like they're talking about now, then having all M198's.

[RedlegCPT]

Yes he did, and his baseplate was settled.

Crunchies = Dismounted Infantry

CDATS = Computerized Dumba$$ tankers = M1A1

[RedlegCPT]

Were are you getting your information? We fired over 5000 artillery rounds in the DS fight in OIF.

[ttkciar]

> 180 HP? That has got to be wrong.

It's about right. A 20:1 horsepower:tonnage ratio has been pretty standard for tanks and other AFV's for the past couple of decades.

Unloaded, 180 hp / 7 tonnes = 25.7 hp/t
Loaded up, 180 hp / 10.2 tonnes = 17.7 hp/t

-- TTK

[Capt. Tom]

I saw the 280 fired at Ft. Sill Oklahoma around mid 1955.

The shell was an anti personnel shrapnel round.
I could see it exit the bbl and go down range.
The shell looked like to be the size of a 55 gallon drum.

The targeted area was probably 4 miles away. But if you put enough bags of powder in it you can get out 18 miles. - Tom