ARTILLERY: Marine Mortar Replaces Howitzer

StrategyPage.com ^ | January 16, 2004

[Cannoneer No. 4]

January 16, 2004: The U.S. Marine Corps has, as is their custom, taken an innovative approach to developing a new lightweight, self-propelled artillery system (the Expeditionary Fire Support System, or EFSS). They have combined an existing commercial vehicle, the Supacat HMT (High Mobility Transport) with an Israeli 120 mm mortar system. The HMT is a seven ton, four wheel cross country vehicle with a capacity for 3.2 tons. It has a 180 horsepower engine and a 4x4 drive optimized for cross country work. The cab is being modified to hold the five man gun crew. The Israeli mortar system weighs 1.6 tons and is mounted on a computer controlled turntable. The mortar can fire regular 120mm shells 8.2 kilometers, or rocket assisted ones 13 kilometers. The breech loading mortar system allows for rapid fire and the turntable system takes data directly from forward observers and quickly positions the 120mm tube to put the shells on the target. The EFSS can put shells on the target within minutes of a request. The system can fire 20 rounds in two minutes and uses a GPS assisted fire control system to provide accuracy comparable to any other artillery system. The EFSS is light enough to be moved by helicopter or Osprey tilt-wing transport.

The system can fire several types of cluster bomb shells. One of these, for example, will destroy most armored vehicles, and kill or wound most troops in a 100x100 meter area. Each of the 32 bomblets can penetrate four inches of armor, but will be hitting the thinner top armor on armored vehicles.

The marines went after the 120mm mortar, instead of another 155mm howitzer, because the mortar is lighter, faster firing and uses a shell that does damage equivalent to 155mm types.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

First they cancel Crusader, now they replace towed howitzers with SP mortars.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

FAPL ping

[Cannoneer No. 4]

LOCKHEED MARTIN TESTS ISRAELI WEAPONS FOR U.S.

Israel's Soltam has provided the 120 mm recoil mortar system. Elbit System's U.S. subsidiary, EFW has provided a weapon control system and enhanced tactical computer.

The Israeli systems were integrated on a Supacat High Mobility Transport, meant to provide tactically maneuverable fire support and rotary wing or tiltrotor transportability.

[IGOTMINE]

The Marines were never going to be Crusader customers.

The guy that is working this program for the Corps is a Freeper. A very, very smart guy.

[lormand]

I wonder if they will replace the howitzers in the AC-130s with these?

[U S Army EOD]

I wonder how accurate the RAP rounds are?

[lormand]

"The guy that is working this program for the Corps is a Freeper. A very, very smart guy."

I wonder who that guy could be.....hmmmm?

[LouD]

The Soviets had a 240m SPArty piece that was apparently very effective. I think the point is to provide transportable shorter range organic fire support, and fill in the longer range mission with air support.

[U S Army EOD]

Those are 105's and the ammo is a much easier to handle plus when you shoot out the door your are shooting direct fire of a sort.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Lockheed Martin successfully tested its Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS) engineering prototype at the 29 Palms test range in California. The EFSS was designed and built (on Lockheed’s dollar) for the US Marine Corps’s fire support requirement. During the tests the self-propelled 120 mm mortar system fired several rounds from various elevations and azimuths, including over-thecab shots. The EFSS integrates a Supacat High Mobility Transport vehicle, the Soltam 120 mm recoil mortar system and a weapon control system and Enhanced Tactical Computer from EFW.

[lormand]

"Those are 105's and the ammo is a much easier to handle plus when you shoot out the door your are shooting direct fire of a sort."

Thanks for the clarification. I thought all Howitzers were 155mm because I am an ignorant civilian. :)

[Peace will be here soon]

The HMT is a seven ton, four wheel cross country vehicle with a capacity for 3.2 tons. It has a 180 horsepower engine

180 HP? That has got to be wrong. A seven ton vehicle ( with a 3.2 ton capacity )with a 180 horsepower engine.

[AmericanVictory]

Let's hope that the Rummy reforms don't shut down the independence of the Corps in coming up with better ways to do things on a decentralized basis?

[CatoRenasci]

Well, I'm a redleg, so color me very sceptical of replacing rifled tube artillery with a mortar.

No question that mortars are easier to transport and quicker to fire. They're also easy to use in most ways.

But, mortars have two fundamental flaws as serious battalion and regimental combat team level indirect fire support:

Mortars are not nearly as accurate as tube artillery; and

Mortars have significantly shorter ranges than equivalent bore diameter tube artilllery.

It's been a long time, but I once spent an afternoon pouring over the firing tables for the 4.2" mortar and comparing it to the 105mm howitzer. The differences in range and deflection probable errors were significant. If I had to fire danger close, there's no way I'd do it with mortars. Just, no way.

[CatoRenasci]

Field artillery tubes are usually in one of the following sizes:

105mm -- now mostly airborne and reserve
155mm -- now the standard battalion level tube artillery
17mmm -- probably all gone now, maybe some in the reserves or Guard - were very long range, tiny deflection probable error, large renge probable error, biggest problem was short barrel life.
203mm -- the famous 8" howitzer, probably the most accurate artillery piece fielded by any army, ever.

All of these, except 105mm, are usually self-propelled these days, although there are some towed 155mm (M198).

[U S Army EOD]

Especially using a RAP round.

[The Shootist]

Why use a 122? What's wrong with the 4duce?

[Chewbacca]

Attach some sort of GPS guidance package to a mortor round and I am sure they could be just as accurate as a JDAM.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

No question that mortars are easier to transport and quicker to fire. They're also easy to use in most ways...

Mortars have significantly shorter ranges than equivalent bore diameter tube artilllery.Would those be very good reasons why the Marines would want them and not the rifled bores?

BTW, I loved the Medicine Bluffs.

[lormand]

Thanks for the great info on artillary tubes. I am soaking it up like a sponge.

I am extremely greatful to the men and women who have served our country.

[tortoise]

180 HP? That has got to be wrong.

Not at all. They need torque to move that weight, not horsepower. This is normal for diesel engines, modest horsepower and mountains of torque; it is why diesels tow so well. It may be 180HP, but it also is probably around 500 ft-lbs of torque.

[CatoRenasci]

Y'p that's probably why the marines like 'em. But, the marines have always liked mortars, they hated giving up their 60mm back in the '60s.

Commanche County ping!

[Darksheare]

Got to see an M-198 self fold.. after the barrel was cranked to the ground.
That crew did an oops.

[Lurker]

Whaddya think?

L

[neverdem]

This being breech loaded, do you know if it can fire at low angles or direct fire like a howitzer? If it only fires high angle, what's the reason to abandon traditional muzzle loading mortars.

[Uncle Meat]

Anybody remember the days of 8" artillery[M110 howitzers]?They were eventually replaced with the MLRS.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

I know the Marines weren't getting Crusader. I just mentioned it because these are tough times for artillerymen. The Air Force wants to take over the fire support business altogether, the Army wants to convert them to MP's, and now the Marines want to replace howitzers with mortars. Cannoneers are going to be gettin' mighty scarce.

I think the Marines are at least making sure they retain organic all-weather fire support capability. They have always been real big on close air support, but they seem to be resisting the push to make the ETAC the king of the battlefield.

[Dead Dog]

LOTS OF FING TORQUE!

[SAMWolf]

Bump

[Orangedog]

I'm still waiting for 'Atomic Annie' to make a comeback. ;) 280mm's of tactical nuclear fun!

[neverdem]

Got to see an M-198 self fold.. after the barrel was cranked to the ground. That crew did an oops.

What happened, too much powder charge for direct fire? What do you mean "self fold"? Could you be a little more descriptive? Did it wreck the cannon mount or carriage? You got my curiosty going.

[archy]

Attach some sort of GPS guidance package to a mortor round and I am sure they could be just as accurate as a JDAM.

The good news is, you've got your wish. The bad news is, it's not our round. It's Russian, the Kitolov-2 120mm projectile for use in 120mm mortars. Range 9,000m, We'll be along shortly, I expect.

[RatSlayer]

"Well, I'm a redleg, so color me very sceptical of replacing rifled tube artillery with a mortar."

IMHO, rifle tubed artillery has already been obsoleted by airborne munitions since it is much easier to call in an air strike than it is to transport howitzers into firing range of the rapidly advancing spear heads.

The only advantage I see for howitzers is that they cost much less per round delivered on target. But since were are the USA, the cost issue is much lower in importance to the mobility issue.

Assuming the mortar tubes will travel with the spear heads, this is probably a good thing, since it will give them some firepower they didn't have when airpower was grounded and when the howitzers were lagging behind.

So I think it is really airpower that they see as the howitzer replacement and the mortars are just a backup for when you get your tit caught in a wringer and an air strike isn't immediately available.

[neverdem]

The 4.2" mortar had a rifled barrel. IIRC, a crew in Sicily during WW II got a round into the open hatch of a kraut tank.

Probable errors are always going to be greater when either a mortar or howitzer fire a high angle mission because of the greater trajectories as opposed to a direct fire or low angle missions with with howitzers.

[USMCVet]

This is the Lockheed-Martin EFSS candidate - there are several more systems being proposed for the Marine Corps including a couple of rifled 120mm mortars.

The article doesn't mention it, but the Corps is looking at 120s because the 155s are too heavy, bulky and slow moving for long distance air movements, such as for our Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare (EMW) missions. Towed 155s strongly handicap our ground maneuver forces too because they take 20 minutes to set up and they don't move very fast trying to keep up with LAVs, tanks, and armored amphibians.

A rifled 120 with a state-of-the art aiming system shoots very, very well - usually a CEP of 25 meters or so.

Have a look at the Dragon Fire Mortar during your web searches...for another version of the EFSS. The Dragon Fire can be towed behind a HMMWV or loaded onto a modified LAV as a form of fast SP artillery. About this time next year, the Dragon Fire will be capable of firing accurately on the move from its LAV platform.

If somebody would be kind enough to instruct me on how to put a photo on this thread, I'll show you what this puppy looks like.

Whole different world out there!

[300winmag]

Y'p that's probably why the marines like 'em. But, the marines have always liked mortars, they hated giving up their 60mm back in the '60s.

I think the Marines are going for short-range fire support, and letting other systems handle longer ranges. That's why they don't have eight-inch or MLRS systems.

One of the nice things about 155mm artillery is that there are lots of special-purpose rounds for it that aren't available in other systems. 155mm is to artillery what the Garand is to rifles.

[Beelzebubba]

Bang

[Tailback]

It's a diesel engine. For example, most 18 wheelers in the US have a 80,000 lb GVWR (gross vehicle weight rating) and run anywhere from 250-400 horsepower. With Diesel engines the horsepower rating doesn't mean as much as torque.

[Tailback]

We'll be along shortly, I expect.

Not unless some palms get some serious greasing at the Pentagon.

[greydog]

I had the pleasure of being in on the 1st field test of the "copperhead" laser-guided round. I don't think it lasted long, too much of a hassle to set up a forward observer with laser sighting for all targets I think.

By the way, the first round fired had a premature deployment of the guidance fins and went end over end and landed about 500 yards away. Should have seen everybody trying to figure out which way it was pointed (it had a shaped charge warhead).

[SICSEMPERTYRANNUS]

This article is inaccurate. The Marine Corps still intends to field the Lightweight 155. The 120 mortar is intended to plug the indirect fire support gap between the 81s and the 155.

SIC

[neverdem]

What's the advantage to breech loading mortars other than more control when the weapon is fired, i.e. the weapon is already loaded, waiting to fire?

[SICSEMPERTYRANNUS]

CR,
We still have 60s. The Company Commmander's own personal artillery:)

SIC

[CasearianDaoist]

I thought the Corp just fielded a new lightweight titanium alloy 155mm a few years back. It is extremely light and can be a carried in on most fixed-wing and rotary transport. With the V-22 they can bring one down with its crew and a couple of days of rounds. Perfect for rough terrain where speedy insertion is better than a self propelled solution. I think that this particular mortar are for more "mechanized units" like the LACV companies. Correct me if I am wrong but I think that they plan to use both. The point here is that they do not want to use a 155 self propelled tube, not that they will have no 155's in the corp.

With the addition of those small light weight MLRS that the corp is getting they are really developing a very powerful "mini battery brigade? and the MEB and MEF level that can also be spun out to the MEUs. It makes them capable of taking on good sized regional armies while still maintianing the expeditionary profile.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

IMHO, rifle tubed artillery has already been obsoleted by airborne munitions since it is much easier to call in an air strike than it is to transport howitzers into firing range of the rapidly advancing spear heads.

That does seem to be the crux of the argument.

For as long as most of us can remember, our most likely adversary thought of artillery as the God of War. He devoted enormous resources to outgunning us, and we devoted much effort at counter-battery and anti-armor munitions delivery. Both our artilery and his was considered the primary casualty producer.

That adversary is gone now. Artillery is now looked upon by some as a relic of industrial age warfare.

I think it premature to do away with tube artillery. The Air Force will never take care of you like your own Direct Support 155mm Battalion will.

[CasearianDaoist]

Do not forget that they have organtic fixed and rotary air support at the MEU level. They just want flexibility.

[Parmy]

2nd,2nd Mech. had a 4.2 mortor section in their battalion over 30 years ago. They were mounted in the back of M113's, the old tin box we used as mechanized infantry. They went everywhere they were needed.

[CasearianDaoist]

They just bought the new smaller MLRS system. Very cool battery integration. The smaller system can go on a C130 and can also fire ATACMS. Very mobile, very powerful.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Dragon Fire Mortar System Test Successful

A Dragon Fire 120mm mortar mounted on a Marine Corps Light Armored Vehicle fires during a recent test at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Va. Photo courtesy U.S. Navy Surface Weapon Center

Meanwhile, Stryker Mortar crews have to roll their tubes down the ramp and fire from the ground.

[edwin hubble]

"Why use a 122? What's wrong with the 4duce?"

The 122mm is half again the projectile size of the 4.2 inch.
the 122mm range is 8.2km vs. a range of 5.4km for the 4.2 inch.

---

The 4.2" mortar is 106.68mm in diameter, compared to the 122mm mortar. (a ratio of 1.1436 to 1)

If you compare the relative volumes (taking the cube of the diameters to approximate the mass and volume of the projectile) it is 1.50 to 1.