Expiditionary Force Artillery Ideas

[Rafael]

Is it practicable (or practical) to implement medium sized (75-76-90mm) calibers for expeditionary, first-echelon, landing-force arty?

Apart from being worth it, I would like to know if there is some advantage logistics-wise, or at least in quantity of transported ammo

Rafa

[LemonJello]

Is it practicable (or practical) to implement medium sized (75-76-90mm) calibers for expeditionary, first-echelon, landing-force arty?

Well, those calibers aren't much bigger than organic mortars for a Marine battalion (60mm and 81mm) which fit the bill for the high-trajectory fire support during the assault.  These systems also are man-portable, so you aren't reliant on vehicles as much as towed artillery.  Throw in some on-going work on a new 120mm mortar, too.

Now, I'd personally love to see an updated Ontos brought back into service; either replace the 105mm recoilless rifles or develop a family of modern munitions for the 105s.

[noxioux]

Is it practicable (or practical) to implement medium sized (75-76-90mm) calibers for expeditionary, first-echelon, landing-force arty?

Apart from being worth it, I would like to know if there is some advantage logistics-wise, or at least in quantity of transported ammo

Rafa

In days long ago I was a misfortunate 60mm crewman, and then later, an 81mm mortar crewman.  In practice, the 60's give you good, very fast close in coverage, and the 81's sorta fill the gap between that and the 155's.  We had nothing in-between, and I'm not sure there was a need.

81's simply rock, IMHO.  But the argument against medium-range stuff could be simply put as a ratio of firepower and speed.  The 155's lay down a huge amount of firepower, but are comparatively slow.  The 81's and 60's are very fast, very mobile and can put out a very effective amount of firepower.  81's are man-portable (technically), but in practice a mortar platoon will usually be mounted on humvees.

[LemonJello]

In days long ago I was a misfortunate 60mm crewman, and then later, an 81mm mortar crewman.

I was a simple rifleman, and though I appreciated my brothers in the mortar section, I was quite happy to just have my rifle/203 to hump around and not the baseplate or tube for the 60mm.  I was a little jealous of the heavy weapons company and their humvees, but then I got the pleasure of watching them have to hump their systems along with the rest of the battalion on a few occasions. 

I really like the idea of a modernized Ontos that would be organic to the infantry battalion, those 105s would come in handy in urban situations, as well as providing another weapon to use against soft skin targets to compliment javelin/SMAW teams.

[Jeffry Fontaine]

The real advantage to the smaller indirect fire weapons such as the mortar is the ammunition supply.  Smaller projectiles means more of them are available within the unit that is being supported.  A big difference from the traditional artillery where the ammunition is so much larger and nowhere as easy to stuff into your pocket.  At least with the smaller caliber mortars you can spread your basic load out to the whole platoon or squad so that many more projectiles can be made available for providing supporting fire when needed. 

This advantage is quickly lost as the size increases so your 60mm mortars will have more ammunition available than an 81mm mortar.  The smaller size of the mortar also allows you to make it man-portable but at a cost in movement time.  If you have a vehicle available you can leave the weapon assembled and carry it in the cargo bed where it can then be deployed for use when required.  Traditional direct fire and indirect fire artillery will always require a prime mover and other specialized equipment to make them effective, while the mortar has always been an infantry weapon. 

[Burncycle]

The Wiesel 120mm mortar looks like a winner to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qln3hVoe8qA

Guided rounds for it would be even better, although as mentioned with smaller calibers you can bring along more ammo