Posted on 03/28/2005 6:27:16 PM PST by Righty_McRight
CHICAGO — In September 2004, Sgt. Shawna Morrison of the Illinois National Guard's 1544th Transportation Company was leaving a mess hall in Iraq's Green Zone for a meeting with her new commander when she was killed in a mortar attack (search).
Morrison's parents, who reside in Paris, Ill., are urging the military to try and do anything to prevent deaths like that of their daughter's.
"Do it. Do it. Do it for our people," said Morrison's mother, Cynthia. "We are just losing too many people and it is all by these types of bombs. If it is not a car bomb, it is a mortar. We are losing an awful lot of kids."
According to The Defense Manpower Data Center, which collects and maintains an archive for the Defense Department, of the 1,136 hostile active-duty deaths (search) reported as of March 5, 39 of them were due to mortar attacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
About time, but wouldn't it just be cheaper to upgrade and redeploy these?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m163.htm
I suspect the reason for this system being fast-tracked is that it will be useful against other types of incoming hardware such as artillery and possibly missiles. This sounds fantastic, and very effective.
I'm struck by the few mortar deaths. I think it was much higher rates in WWII.
We already can't use counter battery fire because the bad guys shoot from civilian areas. The MO is for the terrorists to setup a mortar tube in civilian areas, shoot a few rounds and run leaving the tube in the middle of the street. They know troops are on the way as soon as they shoot.
With a fast enough system an overhead platform could drop a Hellfire or equivalent on them before they got out of the blast radius.
Right, but a counter fire battery fires mortars or similar exploding ordnance towards the location where the inbound weapon was fired. The anti-mortar is firing smaller, non-exploding rounds.
There has to be a big difference between say, a dozen 20mm bullets (albeit a depleted uranium bullets) falling back to earth near the perimeter of the base, and a dozen 60mm mortar shells each with 3-4 lbs of high explosives landing in a neighborhood.
Of course, I believe if we had a policy of always firing the counter fire batteries, people would be more likely to chase off the insurgents from their neighborhood.
Ya THINK?!?!
Unless they hit your house.
Something I didn't think of until I read your post is that counter battery and mortar defense do two separate things. Counter battery kills the guy trying to kill you, mortar defense saves your troops.
We can get around the need for counter battery by using other assets.
What you achieve is civilian casualties and no enemy KIA.
My first post could have used some more thought. Counter battery fire against this enemy is ineffective. Other assets will work better to kill those that shoot the mortars.
A smart round from a 81mm or 120mm mortar might work - you'd only need to send one if it is terminally guided. The only one of those that is operational so far, that I know of anyway, is the Swedish Strix from Bofors, 120mm. (The Brits - BAe - tested an 81mm smart round but the army there killed the project a while ago. US smart 120s are in development but no contract has been awarded yet).
You are right, but I stick by my theory that mama Iraqi who does not want American mortars falling on her and her kids will keep an eye out in her neighborhood and chase away the bad guys with her broom if they do show up.
A very basic theory which applies to any culture: If mama's not happy, nobody's happy.
I think our restraint provides an environment which allows the insurgents to operate with impunity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.