|
President Trump chews out a BM3 for showing up out of uniform.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
The Swedish AMOS mortars are cool as hell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WMp6c3LTxE Doubly so when they put them on a fuckin boat. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:The Swedish AMOS mortars are cool as hell. Is that for use against other boats or shore bombardment?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Shore bombardment, all the fjords and bays in Scandinavia warrant lots of small combat boats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
mackensie posted:President Trump chews out a BM3 for showing up out of uniform. Melania always has her eyes hidden by either sunglasses or a ballcap. I wonder if it’s to hide the thousand-yard stare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:The Swedish AMOS mortars are cool as hell. What's the difference between a mortar and artillery at that point? The mortar fires at a higher angle?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Lower velocity and a higher angle, generally but now always fin stabilized.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Both the AMOS and NEMO (similar, single-barrel 120mm mortar for Finland) advertise the mortar as the primary purpose, but have demonstrated direct-fire capability. Better than nothing, but unless you're just running up the score as you're smashing up buildings with enemy light infantry, I would not like my mortar section in direct combat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
I think pretty much every modern mortar shell contains its own propellant so there's no powder bags to load beforehand or shells to eject after firing. I don't know about the AMOS specifically but crew served mortar shells often have little pre-measured rings of propellant wrapped around the tail that the crew tears off for different ranges and trajectories. I guess the distinction would be that the mortar tube itself doesn't require any extra loading or ejection steps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Lower velocity and a higher angle, generally but now always fin stabilized. the high angle is prob really important for fighting near fjords. arty is bad at hitting reverse slopes if the mountain is too steep.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
I could be wrong, but also my understanding is also that due to the lower velocity/ranges of mortars vs howitzers, you can pack more HE in a similarly sized mortar shell without risking integrity of the round.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:58
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I could be wrong, but also my understanding is also that due to the lower velocity/ranges of mortars vs howitzers, you can pack more HE in a similarly sized mortar shell without risking integrity of the round. I recall hearing that as well, but only for fin stabilized rounds. I never hear it from a reputable source though. wikipedia posted:
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
It all goes back to tactics vs. logistics. The biggest difference between mortars and artillery isn't the explosive yield, the math involved in obtaining hits, the range, or the uses on the battlefield. It's the logistical supply chain. When you graduate from sending explosives kinda far (3-12km) to really far (5-30km), you need orders of magnitude better propellant and equipment to do so. It ends up becoming its own speciality, hence the 13 series for artillery. Things start to matter like weather, earth rotation, etc. that you can fudge a bit with mortars. Also, as mentioned earlier, you need different kinds of propellant in different quantities in their own batches to send howitzer shells as far as you'd like. Lastly, when you're subjecting long howitzer barrels to those extreme forces, they require calibration and repeated testing to ensure the metal hasn't worn thin (it can explode or deform or just lose accuracy) aka "tube wear". The military has a host of contractors and specialists who perform all of those tasks. I don't know what they do with beat-up mortar barrels, but they could probably afford to just toss them and buy new ones since they cost so much less. In addition to all of that, you have one MOS (11C) in the army that can set up mortars of close/med/far range (60/81/120mm) respectively in light infantry, and also in stryker/heavy units, with much less schooling and expertise. The drawback is that they rarely carry the amount of ammo (especially if they're humping) that artillery does. The plus is that they deploy quicker and are organic/attached to the infantry ground force commander meaning they do what you want when you want it without any loving around or arguing on the radio. They also have drastically reduced range, but that matters in drastically different ways in a COIN vs conventional fight. In a COIN fight, you can put all of your artillery on a FOB and operate with relatively strong and reliable fire support within about 25km. Beyond that your options for a TIC are organic mortars, MK14 / M2 on your vehicles (assuming you're not in eastern Afghan mountains), or CCA/CAS. Downsides to all. For mortars, it's about logistics. You probably have enough rounds to get you through a few small engagements or one big engagement. Anyway, in terms of practicality, having spent a year doing fire support with an infantry company in eastern Afghanistan I almost always wanted mortars. I knew the team on the guns and they knew me (so they never second guessed my calls for fire); we drilled better than I ever would've had the chance to drill with for a howitzer section; they were quick and they answered to the same boss that I answered to. Additionally, mortars almost always fire in high angle (above 45 degrees) because they're built for it. Firing high angle with a howitzer is really taxing on the equipment and there's often an elevation maximum, which means they may or may not be able to clear an intervening crest (mountain) or can't hit a low spot beyond a crest with HE. But really at the end of the day, the fact that you can have responsive fire support with an aiming circle, mortar/baseplate, and a palette of rounds vs. the battery- and battalion-level equipment and teams required to meet the https://quizlet.com/88033814/gunnery-flash-cards/ posted:FIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCURATE PREDICTED FIRE
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Tactically, mortars are also more responsive due to air clearance. This is a pet peeve of mine, because proper planning and synchronization means that tube and rocket artillery should be able to fire with little or no airspace clearance issues, but we're bad at it. And a bunch of military/adviser studies have shown that it's statistically very unlikely that artillery is going to nail some fixed-wing aircraft. And half the time that someone's freaking out about air clearance the blue air is already over red artillery, and red artillery doesn't give a poo poo about blue air.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
How accurate is mortar/artillery fire?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:How accurate is mortar/artillery fire? Mortars aren't accurate in the sniper rifle sense, but a good gun crew, FO, and plotters will be getting good effect on target in under four rounds The way mortars work is you'll have like four guns in a section. Forward observer calls in a grid, and the lead gun for the section fires off a round. Lets say the round lands 100m to the left over the target. The observer will overcompensate and adjust 200m to the right. Second round hits and its 100m to the right of the target. You can now adjust 100m back to the left and fire for effect. The term is called bracketing. There are devices that will give you the grid of what you're aiming at via laser and using those and guns that are already registered can get you on target with the first round PookBear fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Or just be fancy and have a laser guided mortar. Expensive but effective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Calling for fire is like the one thing I miss about being in the army.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Richard Bong posted:Calling for fire is like the one thing I miss about being in the army. You can always call for fire delivery. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk1eeZeiD4U
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Missionary Positron posted:Yeah, happened to us as well. The forward observers immediately told us to cease fire if they saw movement in the target area. I think they mainly do it because the military has to pay compensation to the reindeer herders if any of their animals wander into an artillery strike. Same if one of our trucks hits a cow that wanders onto the highway.  mlmp08 posted:Tactically, mortars are also more responsive due to air clearance. Approaching this from the other side, I completely agree. Having established ROZes speeds things up, but the comms methods we use for this (I don't know how far we can safely take this conversation, so I'm erring WAY on the side of caution) are not ideal for quick-turn actions. Godholio fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Hell I remember lines in several Vietnam books which amounted to "Ok fly on through but also there's arty firing so don't fly into anything." but zero lines where "Lt Chumberbutt was hit by a friendly arty shell and crashed." I even remember a pilot talking about flying under an Arclight strike.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
A Caribou ate an artillery round. But it was also flying directly over an artillery unit during a fire mission at low altitude. The army fires community is of the opinion that a ROZ over artillery units makes all kinds of sense, but rapidly doing counter-battery fire or performing call for fire, we're likely incurring more risk trying to clear airspace over the impact area by waiting for air clearance and letting ground units get pounded than we're incurring if we fire without detailed air clearance. The caveat is that the Army and joint force writ large need to get better at planning and sync prior to the fight as opposed to waiting until in a shooting war to decide we should keep tabs on where our fixed or rotary wing air is and where our arty fires will go in time and space.  A close call airspace deconfliction video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im_Us1f2JmQ
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
cobras get hit by arty fire in rising storm 2 once in a blue moon
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
It’s rare, but War Thunder models off-map artillery rounds so you’ll very rarely frat an airplane when you call for fire in a tank.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
One time a pair of Kiowas had the bright idea to fly low and in front of our trucks which were on line facing a mountainside on a marked range. Retard very nearly ate a round from a Mk 19. That's all I got, fortunately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Naked Bear posted:One time a pair of Kiowas had the bright idea to fly low and in front of our trucks which were on line facing a mountainside on a marked range. Retard very nearly ate a round from a Mk 19. I once had a PJ launch an m203 so close to us that it went over our helicopter. I enjoyed watching my pilot verbally abuse that guy for the next two weeks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Naked Bear posted:Kiowas Naked Bear posted:Retard Here's the Reader's Digest version for any and all Kiowa stories.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
iKon posted:Here's the Reader's Digest version for any and all Kiowa stories. Retarded or not, those dudes were some ballsy motherfuckers. I remember watching them basically hovering over some of the hottest areas outside Kandahar, trolling for fire so they and the attached apache could kill whoever shot at them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
WAR CRIME SYNDICAT posted:Retarded or not, those dudes were some ballsy motherfuckers. I remember watching them basically hovering over some of the hottest areas outside Kandahar, trolling for fire so they and the attached apache could kill whoever shot at them. That’s pretty much what all the patrols I supported in OIF/OEF did. Go out, stir up poo poo, call in strikes on the stupid bastards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
WAR CRIME SYNDICAT posted:Retarded or not, those dudes were some ballsy motherfuckers. I remember watching them basically hovering over some of the hottest areas outside Kandahar, trolling for fire so they and the attached apache could kill whoever shot at them. Yeah I watched a Kiowa crew support ANA for hours, only taking breaks to rearm and refuel, and only stopping because they got shot down after taking RPG fire the whole time. Those pilots were ballsy as hell and went down shooting. If nothing else is available I'll definitely take Kiowa support over nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:Mortars aren't accurate in the sniper rifle sense, but a good gun crew, FO, and plotters will be getting good effect on target in under four rounds Why the overcompensation? If the first round is 100m to the left why doesn't the observer just compensate and adjust 100m to the right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 19:39
|
|
Phanatic posted:Why the overcompensation? If the first round is 100m to the left why doesn't the observer just compensate and adjust 100m to the right? Gives you two known points bracketing the target (initial round, and second round) which allows for more precise correction as opposed to walking rounds on to the target. If you're in a hurry, the method you suggest can work, depending on the skill of the forward observer. Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Why the overcompensation? If the first round is 100m to the left why doesn't the observer just compensate and adjust 100m to the right? Bracketing is generally not done with 100m margins of error. That is for moving targets or bolder corrections than that, like +500m. Most halfway decent FOs should be able to judge a 50- 100m correction in their sleep. Also the basic FFE spread is 200m so 100m off is “good enough” to tag most of what you’re trying to hit. It’s not great and a waste of some rounds, but you’ll probably get something close. So in theory you could just FFE off that. A call like that with a 100m miss on your first adjust fire round would be followed up with a 100m adjustment added onto your Fire for effect call. Adjustments can take a bit of time so you wouldn’t waste that time and give the enemy time to scoot. If your first round is way off you’d want to bracket with a bold correction to easily get a measurement of how far off you were. As in the 2nd round was half as far on the other side so you can call the FFE in with a 1/4 adjustment in the opposite direction. Also if you’re moving around a lot and don’t have a good location for yourself to send to FDC, you might just throw a round out and bracket off that. E: also it’s an easy method for people less experienced in calling for fire to get a good fire mission. Most NCO grunts have called for fire, but only once a year or so do they actually put rounds down range. Bracketing takes out a lot of the difficulty. It’s half math and half feel. I hope I’m making sense. Richard Bong fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Nov 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. I understand bracketing for a larger error but if the first round was 100 meters off I'd expect just "right 100 (or whatever in mils) and fire for effect."
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
yeah sorry I was just using random numbers
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Patrocclesiastes posted:When I was in the army, more than once we had to stop firing the mortars because target area had reindeers wandering in there It's pretty normal. Livestock and fires are always show stoppers on big ranges. I cleared a bunch of horses out of Peason Ridge at JRTC once, but one snuck back in to drink rain water from an impact crater near a target which happened to be the first one in the table. That dumb rear end came about four feet from catching a rocket on the first run.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
I dropped a GBU-12 on a donkey on the Nellie range because it was standing right next to the target. In order to avoid paperwork they just had the next few ships drop on the same spot to get rid of the evidence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
A new gunner in my company accidentally shot a deer with a training HEAT round from an M-1. He was new and very nervous, and was having a really hard time identifying targets. While scanning haphazardly he mistook the deer shaped hot spot in the thermal for the PC shaped hot spot in the thermal. The TC was so flustered with the guy by that point he just yelled "Fire" when the gunner yelled "Identified". Best part was that we had the video and audio recorded on a through sight video unit. To the gunner's credit he nailed that thing center mass.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Knew an FA guy that found a pretty hosed up site off the road while doing range cleanup. It was a dead deer with burns that had an illumination round parachute stuck in its rack of antlers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Knew an FA guy that found a pretty hosed up site off the road while doing range cleanup. It was a dead deer with burns that had an illumination round parachute stuck in its rack of antlers. I started a huge brushfire in Iraq with one that didn’t deploy correctly , melted the parachute, and dropped to the ground. Also when those rounds burst (at least 120mm mortars do this) the casing can fall on people and kill them. A guy in another troop called for illum Over some houses and killed a guy who was on his roof sleeping due to the heat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 02:15
|
|