Mortars vs Artillery

[StainlessSteelCynic]

As something to add to the GL question...
At one point the British Army used to have 51mm Light Mortar with the HQ element of every Infantry Platoon. As I understand it, during the 1990s the mortar was supposed to be replaced by having a 40mm GL with each Section(Squad) but for any of our British members, please feel free to correct me on this.

The 51mmmm Light Mortar is a "Commando" style mortar meaning that not only is very much light weight, it has no bipod or separate baseplate therefore it can be operated and carried by one person who does not have to be a mortarman per se.
It is definitely planned to be phased out but since the current deployments to Afghanistan it seems that the 51mm has made something of a return to Infantry use.

Light mortars have a longer max range than 40mm GLs but their minimum range often overlaps with the max range of the GLs.
Note: info below pertains to currently used British weapons
40mm GL (low pressure) max range = 400m
51mm Light Mortar (Commando type mortar) max range - 750m
60mm M6-895 light mortar (traditional type mortar) max range = 3800m

As for the MMG vs LMG/SAW debate...
Having transitioned from 7.62mm NATO weapons (L1A1 SLR and M60 GPMG) to 5.56mm NATO weapons (F88 Austeyr and F89 Minimi) my personal opinions are this - I like 7.62mmN for longer it's range compared to 5.56mmN.
The whole argument about lighter ammo means you can carry more has it's good and bad points but generally, I would prefer to carry any GPMG/MMG because if you're going to fight someone at range, then give me 7.62mmN (I was the Gunner for my Infantry Section with the M60 for several years).

The weight of a modern LMG unloaded compared to a modern MMG unloaded is only about 1 to 1.5 kg (2.2 to 3.3 lbs). For example, the Minimi in 5.56mm in typical configuration weights 6.85kg (15.1 lbs) unloaded while it's big brother, the Minimi 7.62 (in 7.62mmN) weighs 8.17kg (18.0 lbs) unloaded. After giving the LMG Gunner all that extra ammo he can now apparently carry, he has as much to carry as the MMG Gunnner and sometimes more so the only significant differences come down to two questions in my mind: -
1. How much ammo do you need for the job
2. What range are you expecting to engage the enemy
The two are dependent on each other so you have to start looking at the task and selecting the right tools.

I very much see advantages in the Fire Team concept where the two Fire Teams in a Section/Squad have one LMG/SAW each while the Section/Squad HQ element has a 7.62mmN MMG. Rather than make a unit select a 5.56mm or a 7.62mm weapon each time they have a task**, the two weapons are already organic to the unit

Apologies for my rambling, I hope that all makes some sort of sense! I've been awake for about 15 minutes without so much as a cup of tea or coffee - that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it!


**Which is something governments don't like because it means paying for extra weapons that they don't see being used all the time!

[kalos72]

It does thank you. Great points on the MG vs SAW debate...

But I was thinking of replacing the MG's in the Weapons Squad with GL for added firepower and moving the MG's directly into the infantry squad.

The squad would still have an MG but also a mobile GL as well...but your points about two different types of ammo in the same squad is very valid.

Also, didnt the Mark-19 have an indirect fire range too

[StainlessSteelCynic]

NOTE: This all makes perfect sense to me because I learnt it over the course of several lessons but I re-read my explanation and I'm not so sure it makes it clear. Anybody else who can offer a clearer explanation please feel free to jump in!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I should have also added that while modern MMGs tend to be around 8-9kg (18-20 lbs), GPMGs and MMGs from the 1960s-1990s period tend to be around 10-11kg (22-24 lbs). For example, the M60 in Australian service weighed 10.45kg (23 lbs) empty - 12.7kg (28 lbs) with a 100-rd belt loaded.

Ammo weights are typically as follows (I have given approximate weights because variations always occur due to different countries having different charge amounts, different powders used for the charge, different projectile weights etc. etc.)
100-rd linked belt 7.62mm NATO - approx 3.0kg (6.6 lbs)
200-rd linked belt 5.56mm NATO - approx 3.2kg (7.0 lbs)


As for the Mk-19, yeah it does have Indirect Fire capability because it fires a higher pressure 40mm grenade than your standard Infantry GL (e.g. M203, HK69, M79, CIS 40 GL etc. etc.). It fires a 40mm x 53mm round compared to the 40mm x 46mm round of the Infantry GLs.
From what I recall it has a direct fire range of 1400m and an indirect range of about 2000m.


So again, a lot comes down to what range you expect each unit to cover. The Infantry Platoon doesn't need to be lugging around 81mm mortars because they probably have weapons of sufficient range for the actions they undertake. The 81mm mortars are better suited to being in a unit that can transport them effectively and keep them from being too close to the frontline, they have enough range to allow this.

As a gross simplification, because you want your weapon capabilities to overlap but still be at their most effective minimum and maximum ranges, you organize the allocation in a layered distribution - you place the longer range weapons further to the rear while the shorter range weapons go closer to the frontline always keeping in mind where the maximum range of one weapon starts to overlap with the minimum range of the next. It's all about providing support to each unit while making use of each weapons particular strengths.

[swaghauler]

Swag has all the 411!

The mortar teams would have an unarmored cargo vehicle of some sort...adjusted to meet the needs of the weapon.

This is a custom build unit for III Corps return to the US to clean up Texas. My units were smaller, battalion sized, and carried more punch at lower levels. IE the mortars at the platoon level.

My question is really would a pair of howitzers be of much use to a battalion that already has 4 heavy tubes and is only responsible for a single county Might be overkill...

Also, that whole MG v SAW thing at the squad level still irks me. I like the same ammo point...but is the firepower that much different at this point

Would GL's make better use of a weapons squad maybe

A large number of US mortars in Mechanized and Armored Divisions are carried in specially converted APCs. A large number of M113s were converted to do this while I was serving.

Grenade Launchers form the "base" of the "fire support pyramid." That pyramid looks like this:

Man portable grenade launchers: 100m to 400m
Vehicle/Support Launchers (AGS-17/MK-19): 100m to 2000m
Light Mortars (60mm to 82mm): 1000m to 4km
Heavy Mortars (105mm to 240mm): 2km (normal distance behind front) to 10km
Light Howitzers (105mm to 122mm): 5km (rear of front) to 15km.
Medium Howitzers (140mm to 155mm): 10km (rear of front) to 24km.
Heavy Howitzers (above 155mm): 12km (rear of front) to 40km.

The smaller the weapon in the pyramid; The faster the response time.

Considering what happened in Europe; My guess would be that only the M114 155mm Howitzer and the M102 105mm Howitzer would be left in NG reserves. The 105mm would probably be more likely as the M114 can fire all of the M109/M198 rounds. This means that M114's would have been shipped out to replace 155mm losses at the front. Keep in mind that Artillery is a "High Value Target" in war. This means that Artillery Battalions and Regiments (a divisional sized unit in the US Army) would have suffered the same losses of Artillery Pieces as they did in Tanks. 20% unit strengths would be common.

[swaghauler]

Nice layout above!

Its true that the US Army does not have any field guns in its inventory at the present. The last field gun was the M107 175mm self-propelled gun. This system was replaced in its role providing long-range fires by field artillery rockets by the 1980s. However, the M107 was widely exported to US allies. In Twilight: 2000, this system might be found with German, Iranian, Greek, South Korean, and British formations, among others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M107_self-propelled_gun

The M107 was not a Field Gun. It was a Heavy Howitzer. You can determine this by looking at the gun's elevation and ammo loadout. Field Guns (a Russian staple) have a maximum elevation of around 35 to 40 degrees and possess Anti Tank rounds like HEAT rounds. The M107 has a maximum elevation of 65 degrees and does not have an anti-armor round.
The M107 (6.9") was the predecessor of the M110 (8") and the two share the same chassis. Almost all M107's were rebuilt into M110A2's during the 80's and 90's. The M107 had tube life issues and accuracy issues that were easily resolved by converting them to 8" tubes. This Heavy Howitzer was used by the US Army, Greece, Iran, Israel, Italy, South Korea, The Netherlands,Turkey, The UK, and west Germany. Greece, Iran, and Israel would be the only countries who had not totally converted to the M110A2 standard by the time of the Twilight War. The M110A2 was the same weight as the M107 but fired a greater weight of shell (204lbs verses 147lbs) more accurately (50m CEP on the M110A2 verses 150m CEP on M107) but with a shorter range (21.3km to 32.7km for the M107)
The M107 and M110 was generally fielded in battalion strengths of 24 guns (8 guns per battery/4 per "smoke"/platoon). There was generally one Heavy Battalion per Division in NATO units. The primary rounds are ICM and ICM-DP. An M110 can deliver an ICM round that has a primary Blast Radius of 100 square meters.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Keep in mind that Artillery is a "High Value Target" in war. This means that Artillery Battalions and Regiments (a divisional sized unit in the US Army) would have suffered the same losses of Artillery Pieces as they did in Tanks. 20% unit strengths would be common.

I vaguely recall something about the Soviets specifically tasking some of their artillery units for counter-battery fire, hence why they had so many artillery regiments and divisions.
And then there's their inclusion of artillery pieces in Motor Rifle Regiments.
They certainly did love artillery (as Stalin called it, artillery was "Bog Voyny", i.e. God of War)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

As something by way of extra information...
While I was looking for details on Soviet Motor Rifle Divisions, I came across this extract from our old pal Viktor Suvorov.

http://militera.lib.ru/research/suvorov12/03.html

The link has the organization of a Soviet Division but more importantly, it gives an explanation for the distribution of Soviet units in Poland, East Germany and Czechoslovakia.
The most interesting point to note however, is that this page is from a Russian language military literature website. If you're prepared to wade through machine translations, the site may be worth mining.
Main page - http://militera.lib.ru/research/index.html

[swaghauler]

I vaguely recall something about the Soviets specifically tasking some of their artillery units for counter-battery fire, hence why they had so many artillery regiments and divisions.
And then there's their inclusion of artillery pieces in Motor Rifle Regiments.
They certainly did love artillery (as Stalin called it, artillery was "Bog Voyny", i.e. God of War)

The Soviet forces had a 3 to 1 Numerical Superiority over NATO in Artillery. They also had a Range Superiority in each class of howitzer. We had a much better "hit probability" with our electronics assistance and a much better CEP (circular error, probability) per gun than the Soviets. It was a "crap shoot" as to who would prevail in an artillery duel.

[swaghauler]

Russian Field Guns in Twilight2000

As has been discussed before; A "Field Gun" is a cannon designed primarily as an Anti-Armor Cannon but with a secondary "Fire Support" role. The statistics for these guns appear in the Heavy Weapons Handbook as AT guns but are incomplete. I have included some additional information about these guns that GMs may find useful. Use whatever you feel is appropriate for your own campaign.

D44, 85mm: No longer in PACT service.
Indirect Fire Range: 15.65 km
Elevation: -7 degrees to +35 degrees
Traverse (manual): 54 degrees
Special Features: Telescopic Sighting (DIFF to hit).

M1944, (BS-3) 100mm: No longer in PACT service.
Indirect Fire Range: 20 km
Elevation: -5 degrees to +45 degrees
Traverse (manual): 58 degrees
Special Features: Telescopic Sighting (DIFF to hit).

MT-12 (Rapira) 100mm Smoothbore: Russian reserve service.
Indirect Fire Range: 8.2 km
Elevation: -6 degrees to +20 degrees
Traverse (Manual with hydraulic Assist): 54 degrees
Special Features: Stereoscopic Coincidence Sighting (AVE chance to hit) including a laser designator to fire the laser guided 9M117 Kastet missile with a range from 100m to 4km (speed 300m/sec).

Sprut (Octopus) B 125mm (Called the Rapira 3 in game): In service.
Indirect Fire Range: 12.2 km
Elevation: -6 degrees to +25 degrees
Traverse (Fully Powered with Manual Backup): 360 degrees
Special Features: APU for full powered movements and limited travel without prime mover. Enhanced Ballistic Targeting Sight with Telescopic Backup (EASY to hit, Diff with backup) Laser Designator for fire of all Soviet "Tube launched" 125mm AT missiles.

Type 46 130mm: In service.
Indirect Fire Range: 22.5 km, 27.5 km Base Bleed, 38 km RAP
Elevation: -2.5 degrees to +45 degrees
Traverse (Manual with Hydraulic Assist): 50 degrees
Special Features: Stereoscopic Coincidence Sighting (AVE to hit)

Methods of Traverse:

Manual: This is your typical wheel cranked traverse and elevation mechanism. It does use hydraulics to make the cranking consistent, but lacks a "boost" to speed up cranking. You could make 1 to 2 degrees of travel per second.

Manual, Hydraulic Assist: This is a manual wheel crank with both a faster "high speed" crank setting (via a gearbox lever) and a lower more precise slower crank setting. It allows for a faster traverse of up to 5 degrees per second for a very fit operator.

Powered Traverse: This is an electric or mechanical powered drive that traverses and elevates at the touch of a lever or pedal. It can manage up to 10 degrees a second of traverse.

Types of Sighting Systems:

Telescopic Sighting: In this 3 step sight you must put range finding stadia (lines) on the target to determine the range to the target. You then enter that range into the gunner's sight and then traverse the gun until the sight lines up with an indicator on the gun. This gun sight takes 15 seconds to use and gives a Difficult Skill test against a stationary target on an unaimed shot.

Stereoscopic Coincidence Sighting: This sight requires you to center two blurry mirror images of the target in the sight and then turn a knob until the image of the target comes into focus. At this point the sight will list the range to target which you can input right from the ranging sight. You then traverse the gun until it lines up with the sight. This takes 10 seconds and gives you an Average Skill test against a stationary target on an unaimed shot.

Enhanced Ballistic Sight: This sight receives range information from the laser designator on the gun and factors in exterior ballistics such as wind speed, barometric pressure, and gun cant. It then projects a box that you traverse the gun to. The box turns into a crosshair when the tube is on target. This sight provides an Easy test of skill against a stationary target on an unaimed shot. It takes 5 seconds to "laze" the target and determine the range/deflection.

[kalos72]

Here is the idea we are working with...remember this is for my campaign and isn't expected to fit most of yours.

I think the medical platoon is too big and I dont know how to break down the "service" platoon yet so its just a made up number...

[Apache6]

Recommendations on Kalo's Inf Battalion.

Kalos 72:

All comments are recommendations worth at least what you paid for them. (humor attempt)

I'm assuming (but could be wrong) you are using LCV to be "light cargo vehicle" and UCV to mean "larger cargo vehicle." Is that correct

If this is a US based organization, I think it would much more likely be a Task Force then a Battalion, since there are units that would normally be reinforcements to a Inf Battalion, as opposed to organic elements (Engineers, MPs, and Artillery for example).

In the Headquarters Company consider adding a "Command Post" section. This might include a Intelligence Section (S-2) (the Scout and Snipers would likely work for them), an operations Section (S-3)(+/- 7 men who run the Command Post(CP)), Logistics Secition (S-4) and Comms Section (S-6).

Assuming they have radios and when static wire capabiliities, I recommend you add a Communications Platoons, 5 - 7 (including the S-6) men who work in the Bn Command Post and those who are assigned to Co and Platoons.

The Support Section: For T2K might look something like
Logistics Section HQ: 2 men (Logistics officer and his chief)
Armory Section: 4 men
Supply Section: 17 men (primarily concerned with fuel and food stockage and delivery)
Mess (Food Service) Section: 13 men (Mess Sgt and 3 x 4 man teams each cooks for a Co with a field kitchen trailer)
Motor Tranport Maintenance Section: 18 men
Ammo Section: 6 men
Medical Platoon (your numbers don't look too high assuming no other support).

I'd recommend you enlarge your engineer platoon (give them 13 man squads).


I'd recommend you consolidate the light mortar squads and HMG Squads from your companies into a "weapons platoon." The weapons would actually operate in support of the rifle platoons but they would likely be more effective, beter supplied and better trained if in a platoon, where they could be massed as required.

- Your unit is very light on anti armor weapons. You may want to consider giving "bazookas" or RPG-7 or 16 at least at Platoon Level, and maybe add a "Anti-Armor" platoon at Bn Level (with towed AT Guns or ATGM)

[kalos72]

Apache - Thanks for the feedback, always welcome.

1 - Light Combat Vehicle and Unarmored cargo vehicle
2 - US based - Texas Based
3 - Nice detail on the HQ Company thanks - will do
4 - Same with Support thanks
5 - MP was supposed to be the quick reaction style force before I added the Scout Platoon - Scout Platoon is also the Anti-Armor support as needed
6 - Weapons Platoon at the company level I would need to increase the numbers to make sure that each platoon had the right heavy weapons support - makes sense

[unkated]

Here is the idea we are working with...remember this is for my campaign and isn't expected to fit most of yours.

You did ask.

It doesn't seem particularly light to me. But weight is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

However, looking at basics -

• Your basic platoon has a lot of elements for one guy to handle (7 - two weapons, two mortar, 3 maneuver squads), and that's before you add in anything other attachments he might get (say an engineer squad, AT team, crew from a weapons squad), or being called to ask about artillery). The common wisdom is 3-4.
  
• Also, for a 'light' unit, 4 of the 7 elements of a basic infantry platoon have sedentary jobs (set up here, fire that way; when the attack is done, pack up and move on). Doesn't strike me as mobile. Even with vehicles, that's a lot of guys not in the assault who are also not available during the pack-up and move phase.

Uncle Ted

[ArmySGT.]

1989 Soviet Artillery Regiment

[kalos72]

You did ask.

It doesn't seem particularly light to me. But weight is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

However, looking at basics -

• Your basic platoon has a lot of elements for one guy to handle (7 - two weapons, two mortar, 3 maneuver squads), and that's before you add in anything other attachments he might get (say an engineer squad, AT team, crew from a weapons squad), or being called to ask about artillery). The common wisdom is 3-4.
  
• Also, for a 'light' unit, 4 of the 7 elements of a basic infantry platoon have sedentary jobs (set up here, fire that way; when the attack is done, pack up and move on). Doesn't strike me as mobile. Even with vehicles, that's a lot of guys not in the assault who are also not available during the pack-up and move phase.

Uncle Ted

Thanks Ted.

"Light" originally meant more the lack of mechanized/armored support but to your point with all the extra firepower I added perhaps "light" should be more just "infantry".

Can you explain a bit more on your thoughts of the "3-4 wisdom" I am not sure I follow you.