looks like you use the sighting system which looks like a holo sight on top of a laser range finder to get a rough angle of attack if you can visually see the target area that is.
You can also dial a range in if you are forced to estimate or pick it from a map. I have heard anecdotal evidence that they are quite accurate, assuming you have the correct range.
Needless to say, not our Army.
The U.S. Army wants to replace its current mounted and towed 120mm mortars with new systems that will shoot farther and offer protection for mounted crews.
Army officials from Product Manager Precision Fires and Mortars and Project Manager Combat Ammunition Systems began market surveys in August to find defense firms capable of producing a 120mm Mortar Future Indirect Fire Turret by 2021 and a 120mm Extended Range Mortar system by 2026, according to two Aug. 2 solicitations.
The new 120mm Mortar Future Indirect Fire Turret, or FIFT, "is a 120mm turret that provides protection from enemy counter battery systems and insulates soldiers from the effects of both noise and blast overpressure," the FIFT solicitation states. "This turret shall be capable of firing heavier projectiles at a greater range than the current Battalion Mortar System (BMS) or Recoil Mortar System-Light (RMS-L)."
The Army also wants the FIFT to have more automation so the "physical burden on crew is reduced, while supporting a high rate-of-fire capability," according to the solicitation. In loading and firing, the Army wants a system where "ammo transitions from stowage through the firing event without human contact."
At a minimum, the system should have a maximum rate of fire, or MROF, of 16 rounds per minute for one minute followed by a sustained rate of fire, or SROF, of 6 rounds per minute "indefinitely," the solicitation states. Ideally, the Army wants a system capable of "being fired at the MROF of 24 rounds per minute for 2 minutes and maintain a SROF of 12 rounds per minute indefinitely."
The FIFT may be manned or unmanned and designed to be compatible with the Stryker, Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, and Next-Generation Combat Vehicle.
Even more curious - and something that might be more of interest to Canada is the prospect of a 20 km x 81 mm mortar.
Both the Army and the Marine Corps have expressed interest in mortar systems that shoot farther. Earlier this year, the Corps began searching for a company capable of producing the Advanced Capability Extended Range Mortar, or ACERM -- a mortar round compatible with existing Marine and Army M252 81mm mortar systems that offers an effective range of up to 20,000 meters as well.
Personally I think that any turreted mortar system should be assigned to the Arty, especially if it is going to be lobbing bombs 20 km down range and likely to be manoeuvering behind the forward echelons.
What do the pros think about the other system though? 20 km 81s? It sounds kind of long and light to me.
The US Arm The Army is alway assigns mortars to the infantry. the primary mortar at the battalion level is the 120mm and the 81mm mortar at company level. Extending the range of mortars is good but we cant rely on artillery. I would prefer a 105mm solution but I also like the Russian solution of 160mm and 240mm mortars that are wheeled so they can be towed or airlifted.
A 20k 81mm is basically a long range 25pdr, although very affected by windage I suspect. Velocity at the beginning of the arc will be fast, unless it's rocket assisted, which likely means a 60mm like HE load.
Yes T6, but you also give your infantry 105mm cannons to play with. Our army tends to feel that those sorts of things should be left in the hands of the professionals with scarred scalps.
The artillery operate the towed 105's /M119. They are part of support FA battalions and have been used in Afghanistan. I would like to see more HIMARS/MRLS fire units.
Are you suggesting the reintroduction of the 25pdr QF as an alternative to either the 81 or the 120?
I think the 25 pounder QF would fit the bill.
Combat proven, adaptive to high, medium angle and direct fire modes, 306 degrees traverse on a deployable gravity assisted self contained stability platform, which improves accuracy and reduce gun movement from recoil forces. Hardened against EW attacks, offers protection to personal from shrapnel and 7.62x47. Comes complete with it's own articulated ammunition support system and has low maintenance hydraulic braking systems. The gun system can be married with visual and optical aiming system and can be fitted with electrical systems for night warfare. Can be moved by a dedicated tractor or any expedient vehicle over 1/4ton. Fires a multiude of different types of semi-fixed rounds which can be sourced from around the world and is capable of defeating BMP's from all angles and a T-55 from the side with AP ammunition fired with supercharge (muzzlebrake option fitted) System has been deployed world over in Arctic, desert, temperate and mountainous terrain. Vehicle mount options are also available.
Let's go with the Enfields while we're at it!
But back to the AMOS - AMOS on LAV - infantry, armour or artillery?
There's a fundamental difference between a battalion's indirect fire support weapon and artillery in general. The battalion has a limited area of influence dictated by it's organic target acquisition and fire control capability. Artillery on the other hand is designed to reach out beyond the battalions and across a broader front. It's target acquisition and fire control systems are designed to allow that. There's a bit of apples and oranges to the issue.
There's nothing wrong with longer range mortars. If nothing else then they can be positioned further back from the front lines into more secure areas. In worse case scenarios, such as Afghanistan, where a battalion might have a vast AO to cover, it provides more dedicated organic support further out.
Yes. We need a HIMARS/MLRS capability.
Who you give them to should be dependent on what effect you want to achieve.
If you are in Afghanistan you need mortars and the type of fire that an MRLS/HIMARS can lay down. Air support might be a long way off. The bad guys certainly use mortars.
Interesting conversation. Please carry on.
The Army wants more range out of the 120mm mortar, but at what cost ? If the goal is to engage an enemy out to 20 miles I think that's a job for the 105 and 155 howitzers or HIMARs/MRLS. I see the mortar as infantry support by company and battalion mortars. Back in the day the non mech/infantry had the 81mm at the company level with battalion mortars consisting of the 4.2 mortar.
Little over simplified, why only SP for arty? Wouldnt you want a sp mortor carrier in the infantry?
A long-range mortar, with lots of ammunition - doesn't that need a vehicle in support? Even a "dismounted" mortar benefits from an ATV to hump the ammo.
While recognizing the value of large, lumbering, heavily armoured kit - I still tend to look at the value of light forces, even in a near-peer environment, as being to rapidly exploit opportunities to seize strategically important ground before the enemy gets there.
So, for me, the 60-81 mortars (with or without ATVs/UTVs and 2-7 km range) that can be dropped by 'chute or lifted by helo, make sense for light forces or even for rifle coy tms. On the other hand the 120 seems to me to demand a vehicle and if so it might as well be a variant of one in current service, so the LAV. And if the LAV then an automated, permanently mounted mortar.
As to the cap badge - that comes back to the intended employment an the area of operations. My sense is that a 20 km mortar is going to cover a large AO - an area considerably larger than even a 4 coy, 600 bayonet battalion could secure or invest, even in open terrain. That brings the debate, in my mind, down to Blackhats or Gunners, or perhaps both. A 20 km mortar attached to a Cavalry-Light Armoured Regiment makes eminent sense. Likewise one attached to an Infantry Brigade equally makes sense. I lean towards the notion of SP 120s as Arty tools that can be used to support both Cavalry and Infantry as occasions demand.
Perhaps the Brigade Arty should have a large SP-120 battery of something like 16 turrets in 4 tps of 4.
FJAG hit some very good points above that I agree with entirely.
The 120mm is a very real option for either branch, but given our size, the 120mm would be better managed in the Arty, leaving the 81mm with Infantry Bns for their own immediate support.
The 105mm, while still valid, mostly because of simplicity and availability, may be dated.
It seems most R&D investment is in larger calibers or rockets or mortars. Extending range (and accuracy) of any of those is not necessarily high tech anymore.