[CatoRenasci]

Well, I'm a redleg, so color me very sceptical of replacing rifled tube artillery with a mortar.

No question that mortars are easier to transport and quicker to fire. They're also easy to use in most ways.

But, mortars have two fundamental flaws as serious battalion and regimental combat team level indirect fire support:

Mortars are not nearly as accurate as tube artillery; and

Mortars have significantly shorter ranges than equivalent bore diameter tube artilllery.

It's been a long time, but I once spent an afternoon pouring over the firing tables for the 4.2" mortar and comparing it to the 105mm howitzer. The differences in range and deflection probable errors were significant. If I had to fire danger close, there's no way I'd do it with mortars. Just, no way.

[U S Army EOD]

Especially using a RAP round.

[Chewbacca]

Attach some sort of GPS guidance package to a mortor round and I am sure they could be just as accurate as a JDAM.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

No question that mortars are easier to transport and quicker to fire. They're also easy to use in most ways...

Mortars have significantly shorter ranges than equivalent bore diameter tube artilllery.Would those be very good reasons why the Marines would want them and not the rifled bores?

BTW, I loved the Medicine Bluffs.

[RatSlayer]

"Well, I'm a redleg, so color me very sceptical of replacing rifled tube artillery with a mortar."

IMHO, rifle tubed artillery has already been obsoleted by airborne munitions since it is much easier to call in an air strike than it is to transport howitzers into firing range of the rapidly advancing spear heads.

The only advantage I see for howitzers is that they cost much less per round delivered on target. But since were are the USA, the cost issue is much lower in importance to the mobility issue.

Assuming the mortar tubes will travel with the spear heads, this is probably a good thing, since it will give them some firepower they didn't have when airpower was grounded and when the howitzers were lagging behind.

So I think it is really airpower that they see as the howitzer replacement and the mortars are just a backup for when you get your tit caught in a wringer and an air strike isn't immediately available.

[centurion316]

Well, I'm a redleg, so color me very sceptical of replacing rifled tube artillery with a mortar.

The powers of reasoning and intellect that you have so ably demonstrated on many threads on this forum have convinced me to refute your conclusions at great risk. My own personal experiences are also biased toward your view. I once was the proud recepient of an unannounced visit by four rounds of 4.2" from my battalion's very own heavy mortar platoon. Not only was I unimpressed by the general lack of precision of mortars, the demonstrated lack of gunnery skills amongst this platoon, at least, left me less than impressed.

[razorback-bert]

Well, I'm a redleg

That happens even in the best of families, there are some nifty 12 step support groups for it now.

[RedlegCPT]

Plus Motars are not aprroved for overhead fire unlike the "KING"

[jpsb]

That is my recollection too. USMC 0849. Hope the Marine do not give up on the 105, and 155. Naval guns are not what they used to be, and they used to be awlsome weapons.

[Redleg Duke]

Having been both 11C and 13A, I submit that the move is a smart one for the Corps. The 155mm is a fine weapon, but for the ranges that the Corps is dealing with in Littoral Warfare, combined with the reaction time and logistical consideration, it makes sense.

The Corps also is fielding a truck-mounted MRLS that also supports their needs. And remember, they have organic CAS.