New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[JASmith]

That post by LRRPF52 reminds me that we need to take step back and look at the squads, platoons, and companies as systems more than what an individual soldier needs to carry the full burden himself.

The technology for making 60 mm PGM warheads exists for both GPS and Laser-guidance.

If they are incorporated in the manner suggested by LRRPF52, we would see significant changes in tactics and a possible move toward an even smaller caliber and cartridge for the close-defense role. That would also make a cartridge like the Grendel an excellent candidate for the DM, LMG & MMG roles with the .338 filling in at the heavier, longer range end.

Just remember, a 60 mm mortar round may seem puny, but if you are in the open and one lands 5 ft from you, you just had a very bad day. Precision guidance will make that happen a lot more.

Did someone say game changer?

[bwaites]

Never having served, I can't offer much, but I can say, after having just finished "Into the fire: A Firsthand Account of the Most Extraordinary Battle in the Afghan War" which detail Dakota Meyers experience in Ganjigal, Afghanistan, that MORE ordinance that is actually controlled by people on the field would be a good thing, particularly in todays highly mechanized military.

Even though Joes still have to patrol on foot, they generally get in and out mounted, and having those mounted vehicles available allows a lot more hurt, IF the brass allow them to actually have the weapons that they need. a small 60mm mortar would seem ideal, and I wonder what the outcome in Ganjigal would have been if they had been available.

If you haven't read this book, you should. Meyers was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions, and to this day feels like he was a failure because he couldn't rescue his fire team.


For [B]conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving with Marine Embedded Training Team 2-8, Regional Corps Advisory Command 3-7, in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, on 8 September 2009. Corporal Meyer maintained security at a patrol rally point while other members of his team moved on foot with two platoons of Afghan National Army and Border Police into the village of Ganjgal for a pre-dawn meeting with village elders. Moving into the village, the patrol was ambushed by more than 50 enemy fighters firing rocket propelled grenades, mortars, and machine guns from houses and fortified positions on the slopes above. Hearing over the radio that four U.S. team members were cut off, Corporal Meyer seized the initiative. With a fellow Marine driving, Corporal Meyer took the exposed gunner’s position in a gun-truck as they drove down the steeply terraced terrain in a daring attempt to disrupt the enemy attack and locate the trapped U.S. team. Disregarding intense enemy fire now concentrated on their lone vehicle, Corporal Meyer killed a number of enemy fighters with the mounted machine guns and his rifle, some at near point blank range, as he and his driver made three solo trips into the ambush area. During the first two trips, he and his driver evacuated two dozen Afghan soldiers, many of whom were wounded. When one machine gun became inoperable, he directed a return to the rally point to switch to another gun-truck for a third trip into the ambush area where his accurate fire directly supported the remaining U.S. personnel and Afghan soldiers fighting their way out of the ambush. Despite a shrapnel wound to his arm, Corporal Meyer made two more trips into the ambush area in a third gun-truck accompanied by four other Afghan vehicles to recover more wounded Afghan soldiers and search for the missing U.S. team members. Still under heavy enemy fire, he dismounted the vehicle on the fifth trip and moved on foot to locate and recover the bodies of his team members. Corporal Meyer’s daring initiative and bold fighting spirit throughout the 6-hour battle significantly disrupted the enemy’s attack and inspired the members of the combined force to fight on. His unwavering courage and steadfast devotion to his U.S. and Afghan comrades in the face of almost certain death reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.[/B]

[Michael]

Putting mortars in the rifle platoons/squads can be a lot more problematic than you may realize. Having been a mortarman, 60mm section leader, mortar instructor and an 81mm mortar platoon commander, I have a bit of experience with these weapons.

PGM are great tools, in a LW mortar system even more so, but right now they are only being used at the heavy mortar level in the 120mm systems (GPS for US mortars, and I think the Israelis are playing with a laser guided variant). Even though they are Precision guided, the calculations (Think trigonometry) still must put the mortar round in the probable hit area for it to hit the target. It’s not just drop the round and it will hit the target because of the tech.

In the infantry weapons arsenal, it is the only weapon that is not classified as a 'direct fire' weapon. The mortar is designed to be fired from defilade - or 'indirect', and the hang time for the rounds is measured in seconds. While I don't have a Tabular Firing Table (TFT) in front of me, or a wiz wheel, I am almost sure that the shortest time of flight for a 60mm mortar round is about 8 seconds. A lot can happen in 8 seconds....like 80 rounds from a DShK impacting your pos from 1500m away.

So we fire the mortar from defilade to protect it from the direct fire weapons, now you need more than one person in the loop - at a minimum an observer, and more than likely someone running the FDC also. One person can do both, but it is an incredibly rare individual with a lot of training and years of experience. Since it is a high angle of fire weapon, you also have to worry about deconfliction with aircraft and UAVs – mortar round+helo is a baaaaddd thing.

Now we have to look at the weight of the system as well as the ammo. While a M224 60mm mortar (currently used by US forces) can be used in the assault mode with just the barrel and small baseplate (wt about 18 lbs), this method is very unstable and limits the range/changes you can fire. Putting the entire system together (bipod and large baseplate with sites using aiming stakes) you are talking about 47 lbs (new version is about 9lbs lighter but don’t know fielding status). The rounds weigh about 3 ½-4lbs each and can get heavy quick. With a maximum rate of fire of about 30 RPM, you can eat a lot of ammo quickly.

With a maximum range of 3800m and an effective casualty radius of 28m, it is a great area fire weapon, but it is not a POINT weapon, meaning that Laws of War and ROEs look at it differently than rifles, MGs and even hand grenades.

Alright---probably bored you all to tears by now...so I’ll stop.

[stanc]

Even though Joes still have to patrol on foot, they generally get in and out mounted, and having those mounted vehicles available allows a lot more hurt, IF the brass allow them to actually have the weapons that they need. a small 60mm mortar would seem ideal, and I wonder what the outcome in Ganjigal would have been if they had been available.

USMC (and US Army) units do use 60mm mortars in Afghanistan.

4:50-6:30 The long time of flight that Michael mentions is readily apparent.

[video=youtube;Bmcdy-_8p6Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmcdy-_8p6Q[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmcdy-_8p6Q

[video=youtube;FGh0QHyzGW0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGh0QHyzGW0[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGh0QHyzGW0

[JASmith]

Michael,

Not boring at all -- instead very informative!

My introduction to PGM's was in 1970 when I was handed a pair of fighters with 2000 lb Paveway bombs. The first bomb went through the tank turret, indicating both precision and accuracy, and with spectacular effects. The effects from a 2,000 lb bomb aren't particularly precise. That's part of the reason the USAF now has a 250lb-class JDAM. A lot more hits per sortie and much less collateral effects.

What you have done is to nicely point out that one needs to ensure the capability upgrade is done the right way.

The first step might be simply to include guidance within the current structure -- that will result in significant improvement in effectiveness, and the added precision may make the mortar easier to employ in this world of ever-tightening ROE.

Weight of the system is another reason a 60 mm mortar might not be the direct solution.

Nonetheless, the notion of a precision guided grenade reaching out to at least 1500 meters is both intriguing and doable. The 40mm grenade is problematic because the shoulder-launched version doesn't have the reach, and the automatic grenade launcher version has too much recoil except in a tripod mount. Nonetheless, this might be a good starting point in working out a system to fulfill the vision.

[Michael]

JASmith - agreed concerning the grenade aspect...I seem to remember before it was killed off the OICW had a 20mm grenade launcher that had a greater range than the M203s 400m (800m maybe?), and I think H&K was messing around with a 25mmm version that had a max range of about 1000m.

[bwaites]

As I said, I have no experience here to rely on. I do know that grunts die when people without eyes on the scene make decisions about indirect fire, so maybe the answer lies with a completely new system.

Maybe the action commander needs to lead from the front, so he can call in appropriate assets!

[cory]

As long as we're talking about a system, I believe we need to be discussing the replacement of the M9 and 9mm round with another pistol directed towards the CQB environment. If the 5.56 NATO is arguably an effective round at 300m, then I think we can assume something like the 5.7mm will be effective at <10m.

In my dream world....

The 5.56 and 7.62 NATO would go away as far as combat troops are concerned. Grunts would be issued a sidearm designed for CQB and a 6.5 Grendel x45mm (stretched Gendel) chambered AR12. Most Grunts would be issued a 14.5" Version DMRs would get a 18"-20" Rifle. The M249 design would be erased from any and all Military databases. A LMG would be designed around the Grendel. A MMG designed around the .338 would replace the M240 and 50 as the vehicle mounted MMG. In turn 300 win mags and .308 Sniper rifles would be converted to the .338.

Each squad would have an ATV integrated with a Mortar System that would require a Grunt with a pad, telling it where to go and where to fire, utilizing GPS. This system would talk with all other vehicles on battlefield, which would prevent most friendly fire.

The 5.56 NATO won't completely go away. Just give it to the Air Force. Maybe in 100 years they'll use up the stockpile of ammunition we have. HAHA jk

[cory]

As I said, I have no experience here to rely on. I do know that grunts die when people without eyes on the scene make decisions about indirect fire, so maybe the answer lies with a completely new system.

Maybe the action commander needs to lead from the front, so he can call in appropriate assets!

That's ideally how it works. You have a Forward Observer attached to the lead element calling for fire and directing the Mortars and Artillery onto the target.

[stanc]

As I said, I have no experience here to rely on. I do know that grunts die when people without eyes on the scene make decisions about indirect fire, so maybe the answer lies with a completely new system.

[video=youtube;VdRjYkEU-N4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdRjYkEU-N4[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdRjYkEU-N4

Data sheet - https://www.avinc.com/downloads/Switchbl...032712.pdf

[bwaites]

That's ideally how it works. You have a Forward Observer attached to the lead element calling for fire and directing the Mortars and Artillery onto the target.

Yeah, but that only works if the FO can actually get someone to pull the trigger on the mortars and artillery!

From all too many circumstances in Iraq and 'stan, that gets into override by "plug and play" REMF's who make decisions based on ROE's that don't reflect what is happening RIGHT NOW on the battlefield.

[bwaites]

[video=youtube;VdRjYkEU-N4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdRjYkEU-N4[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdRjYkEU-N4

Data sheet - https://www.avinc.com/downloads/Switchbl...032712.pdf

Interesting option, but I'm guessing a LOT more expensive per kill than a mortar or grenade launcher!

[cory]

Yeah, but that only works if the FO can actually get someone to pull the trigger on the mortars and artillery!

From all too many circumstances in Iraq and 'stan, that gets into override by "plug and play" REMF's who make decisions based on ROE's that don't reflect what is happening RIGHT NOW on the battlefield.

I agree, which is why I said theoretically. I read that Dakota Meyer story when he was being considered for the MoH. I still can't read back through the details of that day without getting livid to the point that finding a punching bag is a necessity.

The problem here is the more advanced technology becomes, the closer to the battlefield the politicians can get without every getting their $10,000 shoes dirty. Politicians have got to be removed from the war zone!

[bwaites]

I agree, which is why I said theoretically. I read that Dakota Meyer story when he was being considered for the MoH. I still can't read back through the details of that day without getting livid to the point that finding a punching bag is a necessity.

The problem here is the more advanced technology becomes, the closer to the battlefield the politicians can get without every getting their $10,000 shoes dirty. Politicians have got to be removed from the war zone!

Roger that. Give out guys a mission, then let them do it. Quit the second guessing. Quit the micromanagement.

[stanc]

Interesting option, but I'm guessing a LOT more expensive per kill than a mortar or grenade launcher!

That sorta depends on how many mortar rounds or grenades you have to fire to achieve a kill.

You can have cheap, or you can have effective. Don't count on having both.

[bwaites]

That sorta depends on how many mortar rounds or grenades you have to fire to achieve a kill.

You can have cheap, or you can have effective. Don't count on having both.

That is a good point!

[JASmith]

"Cheap" is a relative term.

Loitering is best done on the ground with no fuel expended so the asset lifetime can be comfortably long.

A rocket-assisted grenade or a straight rocket launched system could get the range. The technology exists for making the guidance doable, and the costs are low enough that the weapon would be considered cheap compared to the number of unguided munitions needed to do the same job.

[Tony Williams]

How do you expect it to be brought into action "when really needed" if it isn't with the patrolling unit???

You could use the same argument for any support weapons: Carl Gustav, ATGW, 60mm mortar, .50 cal Barrett, even MANPADS.....you never know when they might be needed (well, OK, you probably won't need MANPADS in most scenarios) but I presume that you can't carry all of them unless you're patrolling in something like company strength, which seems unlikely.

In the case of the MMG, I suspect that it might be a matter of "we're expecting to be attacked and recent attacks in this terrain have been from very long range, so we'd better assign an MMG to that patrol" but I defer to those of you with combat experience about how this works.

[Tony Williams]

JASmith - agreed concerning the grenade aspect...I seem to remember before it was killed off the OICW had a 20mm grenade launcher that had a greater range than the M203s 400m (800m maybe?), and I think H&K was messing around with a 25mmm version that had a max range of about 1000m.

HK developed the gun element of the US 25mm XM25 shoulder-fired grenade launcher, of which five prototypes have been made and tested in Afghanistan (the Army want's another 36 for more extensive trials). Max range c.700m.

The best we can do in the West at the moment is to step up in performance to 40mm Medium Velocity, which doubles the range of the usual Low Velocity UBGL fodder (to 700-800m maximum ballistic, rather less than that in effective range).

China (of all places) has the lead in portable grenade launchers at the moment. Google for the 35mm QLB-06: 9.1 kg (20 lb) semi-auto, with effective ranges of 600m against point targets and 1000m against area targets (maximum ballistic range 1,650m). These things (and the slightly heavier 12 kg automatic QLZ-87 firing the same ammo) are spreading all over the place - Africa, South America, the Middle East...

[stanc]

In the case of the MMG, I suspect that it might be a matter of "we're expecting to be attacked and recent attacks in this terrain have been from very long range, so we'd better assign an MMG to that patrol"...

That, as well as other missions where an MMG is typically attached. In which case we're back to having two different calibers, and two different machine guns, which negates one of the fundamental premises of the GPC concept.