Mortars vs Artillery

[kalos72]

Question...obviously range is a big difference but is there a "use" or "design" difference between say a heavy mortar and a towed howitzer?

[CDAT]

I am not now, and never have been a red leg, but my understanding is that the arc of fire is also a big difference.

[Webstral]

I'm not a red leg either, so my knowledge has real limits.

As CDAT points out, the ballistic trajectory of the round is dependent upon the type of artillery used to fire it. The higher the muzzle velocity, the flatter the trajectory of the round. Flatter trajectory means longer range, all things being equal.

The category Field Artillery includes two types of tube artillery: field guns and howitzers. Field guns achieve higher muzzle velocity than howitzers, As a consequence, field guns have comparatively longer ranges. The flat trajectory of fire from a field gun means that the gunners can't hit targets behind a hill. Howitzers, with their lower muzzle velocity, can be used to hit targets behind a hill but suffer from range limitations.

Mortars, with their comparatively low muzzle velocity, have several advantages over their cousins in the field artillery. The high arc trajectory of a mortar round in flight means the crew can put mortar rounds into a trench. Obviously, they have to know what they are doing to make this happen at ranges of 1km or more. Still, the high angle of descent of the round makes getting an HE round into the enemy's trench feasible, if not very easy. This very possibility is what brought mortars back into common use in WW1.

One advantage of the low muzzle velocity of the mortar round is that the firing of the round develops a much lower pressure compared to the pressure generated inside a howitzer or field gun. Consequently, mortars can be much lighter than a howitzer or field gun firing a shell of equal caliber. Also, the shell casing of a mortar round can be made thinner than the shell casing of a field artillery round of equal caliber. A 120mm mortar round would pack more HE than a 120mm howitzer round, if there were a 120mm howitzer round. So a 120mm mortar unit is useful for really delivering punishment out to 5km, whereas the markedly smaller 105mm howitzers pushes its rounds out much further.

Again, I'm no red leg, so you have to take my somewhat anecdotal observations about mortars v field artillery with salt. When I have looked at fire mission planning for the 120mm mortars that are assigned to heavy battalions versus the missions assigned to the 155mm field pieces supporting a brigade, the mortars fire more smoke per tube. One has to bear in mind that these two IF systems are apples and oranges. In US doctrine, medium and heavy mortars are often assigned at battalion level in platoons of 4-6 tubes. Howitzers and field guns typically are organized as battalions of 18-24 tubes assigned to brigades or larger formations. The concept of use is derived from the characteristics of the pieces.

It's a shame I'm not with my NG infantry unit anymore (other than the fact that had I stayed with them I'd have done a second tour in Iraq and a tour in Afghanistan by now). I'd be able to call on one of the mortarmen for better answers.

[kalos72]

Great info, thanks guys.

From the doctrine perspective, I wonder if it was just the feeling a battalion didnt need to reach out and touch someone at 15km since that would be outside its AO?

In my game, light battalions, with additional heavy weapon support, are assigned a county. Currently they are given light mortars at the platoon level and 4.2's at the battalion level. I was wondering given their typical AO, if heavy fire support would be needed.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by kalos72

Question...obviously range is a big difference but is there a "use" or "design" difference between say a heavy mortar and a towed howitzer?

Cannon are direct fire. Howitzers are indirect fire. Mortars threw a bomb over a wall or high enough upward to fall straight down and not at an angle. This got a bomb into a trench work or to impact near the base of the wall on the defenders side. Mortar bombs are lower velocity and pound for pound often have greater explosive filler than a shell.

Early blackpowder breech loading mortars are massive to absorb the detonation of an explosive bomb in the breech should one prematurely detonate. Mortars came before howitzers until explosive shells had matured enough to not blow up in gun barrels destroying them. Howitzers also came about as the defenses were built and manned further out creating more depth in the defense that was outside the maximum range of many mortars.

[unkated]

The other trick is that light mortars (50-81mm) are small enough that they do not require any specialized means of transport, so to attach them at company or battalion level does not require a peculiarity in the TO&E, or an attachment, nor does it require specialists from another branch of the army - mortarmen are infantrymen.

The point is to provide the battalion some extra support at a low tactical level, where the response time is very short. And, yes, the range on light mortars is more likely to be directly applicable to the needs of the battalion or company.

Once upon a time, Regiments had a gun section for the same reason.

Uncle Ted

[swaghauler]

The US Army has no proper "field guns." A field gun was a WW2 term for a towed Anti-Tank gun. the Russian 37mm, 57mm and 76mm WW2 Anti Tank guns were "field guns." The US embraced the concept of a "general utility platform" for its artillery after WW2. This was based on observations about the German use of the 88mm Flak gun as an AT gun, an AA gun, and a fire support weapon. The Army later dropped any AA missions from the field artillery.
The US Army did continue the concept of a multipurpose gun with regards to AT and fire support. Both the M102 105mm GUN/HOWITZER and The M198 155mm GUN/HOWITZER that I served on with the 10th Mountain had HEAT warheads and the M198 could fire the Copperhead laser guided AT missile. Both the HEAT and The Copperhead could be fired indirectly if needed. You would fire the HEAT at an extremely steep angle to induce plunging fire (for bunkers) and the Copperhead would stabilize itself in flight. Mortar crews were just our little brothers. We were even slated to begin using the same fuses in our rounds (they were converting over to ours). While AT missions were part of our training; I would not have wanted to do it in real life. Our guns had manual traverse and elevation. Our 155mm shells weighed 96 lbs and we had a maximum effective range of 18km with conventional shells. The newer "base bleed" shells (which generated a gas vortex behind them) were good for about 22km (depending on the shell- HE, GAS, HEAT, etc..) our enhanced RAP rounds (rocket assisted projectile) were good for almost 40km but our Circular Probability of Error (CEP) increased significantly. The CEP of conventional shells was about 100 meters around intended impact point. Newer low drag and base bleed rounds brought that down to 30 meters CEP at 15Km and about 50 meters CEP at maximum IFR.

It is important to note that the rounds a 105mm, 155mm, or 203mm Howitzer fired travel at just under 900 meters a second. it would take TEN SECONDS for a round to travel 9km. The IFR rules in Twilight2000 should take this into account.

In my game it takes 1 minute to call a fire mission plus 2 rounds to fire the gun. I then add the appropriate flight time. My players will often "make a stand" to give the FO time to "call fire." The FO also is required to have a Topo Map and a compass in order to call fire (he must determine the enemy's grid coordinates). My players made the FO the navigator as well.

When determining hit location of rounds; I use 1d20 - FO's roll under skill/hit chance X 5m for deviation of the rounds (0 means an "ATTABOY!, or direct hit- these are much coveted in the artillery) with a CEP of 100m. I use 1D6- FO's roll under his skill/hit chance X 5m for rounds with a CEP of 30m. On a miss; I add the amount missed by to the CEP roll.
I also divide the Indirect Fire Range into 4 range bands which add (12km IFR becomes SHT-3km, Med-6km, Lng-9km, Ext-12km) with appropriately decreasing to hit skill to represent the difficulty of long range fire.

I hope this helps you out.

Swag

[kalos72]

Nice details swag!

Unkated - I am thinking of moving the heavy mortars to the company level and adding 2-3 towed pieces to the battalion level.

Anitarmor/scouts are at the battalion level as well.


Thoughts?

[Askold]

Originally Posted by unkated

The other trick is that light mortars (50-81mm) are small enough that they do not require any specialized means of transport, so to attach them at company or battalion level does not require a peculiarity in the TO&E, or an attachment, nor does it require specialists from another branch of the army - mortarmen are infantrymen.

The point is to provide the battalion some extra support at a low tactical level, where the response time is very short. And, yes, the range on light mortars is more likely to be directly applicable to the needs of the battalion or company.

Once upon a time, Regiments had a gun section for the same reason.

Uncle Ted

I think that is their main selling point.

A cannon with the same firepower would be much heavier and need to be transported by vehicles. Meanwhile there are mortars that are light enough to be carried by one person (WW2 had some tiny mortars being used...)

Grenade launchers and grenade machineguns also offer firepower to infantry units but having a few 81mm mortars a kilometer or two away from you does offer nice fire support AND they can usually reach far enough to help another company in the battalion AND the ammo is usually more versatile. (HE, WP, Flares, smoke and so on.)

[kalos72]

Good point about the gl's...

Maybe move the MG's straight into the squads, GL's to the weapons squads, 60 mm to the mortar section at the platoon level, 120's at the company level and 4 towed 105mm at the battalion level?

I never really got the SAW v MG line, not being infantry. Sure different calibers, rof and such but are they that much different to need a special section for them?

Maybe have the weapon section on the platoon level with 2 HMMWV's with Mark-19's instead of M60's? Didnt the Vietnam era squads carry the mg's organically?

[unkated]

Originally Posted by kalos72

Good point about the gl's...

Maybe move the MG's straight into the squads, GL's to the weapons squads, 60 mm to the mortar section at the platoon level, 120's at the company level and 4 towed 105mm at the battalion level?

I never really got the SAW v MG line, not being infantry. Sure different calibers, rof and such but are they that much different to need a special section for them?

You're not thinking in terms of weight. Somebody has to carry this stuff. Infantry should always plan in terms of having to walk to where it will fight - meaning carrying stuff.

Mortars usually break down into three parts (tube, base plate, bipod)

The M224 60mm mortar weighed some 21 kg altogether, and that was a light weight design. That's 15 lbs for 3 guys, before you start adding shells.

A simple 81mm mortar, say the M252 of the late 1980s (a copy of the British L16), is 40 kg; each shell is 3-6 kg.

Heavier mortars need a vehicle, either to tow a wheeled or have on board. The M120 (current 120mm) mortar is 145 kg - 300 lbs; the shells are some 12.5-13.65 kg apiece.

The weight difference between an MMG and an SAW is less pronounced than it used to be, but, for teh same weight, you can carry a LOT more ammo with a SAW; and for NATO-compatible armies, it means that the SAW and your longarms fire the same ammo.

Uncle Ted

[Raellus]

My dad had personal experience with both types of tube artillery. He was an FO for a battery of 105mm howitzers during the first year of the Korean war. He was wounded by a North Korean mortar. He claimed that conventional tube artillery one could hear coming (a sound akin to the distinctive whistle and/or rumble one hears preceding the impact of artillery in war movies) but mortar bombs one typically could not, making being on the receiving end of an unexpected mortar barrage particularly terrifying.

-

[swaghauler]

I've posted this once before but I'll post it here again.

An Artillery Battalion consists of 3 Gun Batteries, 1 HQ Battery, and a Service/Support Battery. The Standard Gun Battery is equipped with the 155mm (6"). The standard gun for Armored and Mechanized Infantry units was the M109 SP gun. The Standard Infantry Division was equipped with the M114 Towed Howitzer until the 80's. It was then replaced by the M198 Towed Gun/Howiter. Light Batteries would possess the M102 Towed 105mm until 1990. The British 105mm Light Gun (designated the M119) replaced it after 1990. These are almost exclusively attached to air mobile or airborne units after the Army disbanded all of its light infantry divisions (with the exception of the 10th Mountain and the Arctic Division). The Heavy Batteries were attached to Armored and Mechanized Divisions at the rate of ONE per division. They used the 203mm M110 SP gun. The standard compliment of a Gun Battery before the 80's was two "Smokes" (platoons) of 3 guns each for 6 guns per battery. When the Army reorganized the Field Artillery in the 80's; The 155mm and 105mm Batteries got 8 guns each in 2 "smokes" per battery (this was part of the "Division 86" protocol). The Heavy Batteries kept two (6) Gun Batteries as standard but added an MLRS Battery consisting of 9 launchers (with 3 "smokes") in addition to the guns (for a hybrid 3 Battery configuration of 9 launchers and 12 guns).

Mechanized Batteries contained (in addition to their guns):

1 FASV Ammo Carrier per gun (heavy gun units used M548? cargo variant of the M113). MLRS had their own specialized ammo vehicle.

1 M577 Command Vehicle for Fire Direction and control. Later versions in the Army were equipped with Radar for threat detection and counter battery fire.

1 Command Humvee
2 Utility Humvees (1 for advanced party, 1 for XO/Commo)

1 NBC Humvee complete with M8 Chemical Detector and Fire Fighting gear (specialized for WP rounds)

1 Tracked Recovery Vehicle Detached from Service Battery and under orders to service emergency needs of the gun battery.

1 Supply/Utility 5-ton
1 Advanced Party/Utility 5-ton (for the advanced party)
1 HEMMETT heavy Utility transport or 5 ton (for the Battery mechanics)

The 155mm Towed battery made the following changes:

1 5-Ton per gun
1 HEMMETT ammo carrier per gun (later versions of these were lightly armored)

1 HUMVEE FDC vehicle (later there were 2; one with counter battery radar)
1 Command HUMVEE
1 Commo/XO HUMVEE
1 NBC HUMVEE (with M8 detector)
1 Utility HMVEE (for advanced party)

4 5-ton trucks for 2 Maintenance, 1 Supply, 1 Advanced Party/utility.
1 HEMMETT Recovery vehicle detached from Service Battery.

Light Gun Batteries had the following vehicles:

2HUMVEES per gun (one for towing, one for ammo)

1 5-ton Wrecker/Recovery in place of HEMMETT wrecker.

The Army began operating Gun Batteries as "Autonomous Units" in the 80's Both HQ and Service batteries would detach important personnel among the batteries. Each battery could operate "without support" from other members of the battalion. Service Battery had a dual role. Service and recovery of breakdowns/battle damage AND supply of the forward batteries with fuel and ammo. The Battery's Recovery section moved with their assigned Gun Battery. The Supply section had dedicated Tankers and HEMMETTs for each Gun Battery that would move "beer, bullets, and beans" to that battery from the rear areas. This way, a Gun Battery could concentrate on Fire and Displacement.

The Army would have one Gun Battery Displacing while the other two Gun Batteries provided fire support. This allowed [8 guns X 2] to "respond" to calls for fire support. Since a battery only had 1 FDC team; Each Gun Battery would respond to only one call for fire support.

When a Battery (any battery) displaced; It would send an advanced party to survey and prep the area it was displacing to. This was known as an Advanced Party or RSOP (Recon, Survey, Occupation, & Preparation) Team.
HQ would have a survey crew with each Gun Battery who would mark its location with a Transit (for surveying). When the Guns arrived they would "Lay" using a device called a Collimeter. This telescopic like device was used to determine a gun's Deflection (horizontal Arc) and quadrant (vertical Arc/Range to target). If a gun was doing a "hip shoot" (an unsurveyed shoot) off of just "Aiming Stakes" (2 colored poles which fix your position in the world) or a DAP (distant aim point- a pole, tree, or structure); The difficulty would be one level greater.

Batteries which receive "casualties" would be reorganized into smaller 6 or 8 gun batteries. This is because of the nature of fire support. When support is called; 3 guns will fire forming a triangle in the impact area. The idea is to overlap each gun's CEP (circular error, probable) to enhance damage in the "kill box." The Army went to 4 gun "smokes" to increase the lethality of the "kill box" by putting 1 round on each corner of the impact area (giving a 4 CEP overlap).

By the time of the Twilight War. Individual units would be able to call for fire support from any available Artillery Battery without the need to "go through channels." The only issue would be what support was available.

Availability of Support (1D100):

Item Available:
Nothing Available: 71-100 (US), 81-100 (PACT)
60mm Mortars: 51-70 (US)
81mm/82mm Mortars: 41-50 (US), 61-80 (PACT)
105mm/120mm Mortars: 31-40 (US), 46-60 (PACT)
105mm Howitzer 26-30 (US)
122mm Rockets: 41-45 (PACT)
122mm Howitzer: 31-40 (PACT)
152mm/155mm Howitzer: 5-25 (US), 10-30 (PACT)
203mm Howitzer/MLRS: 1-4 (US)
Soviet 203mm Howitzer/Rockets: 5-9 (PACT)
240mm Mortar: 1-4 (PACT)

This is just an example chart of the availability of Artillery on a major front.

[Webstral]

Nice layout above!

It’s 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 1980’s. 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

[kalos72]

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?

[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]

Originally Posted by kalos72

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]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Nice layout above!

It’s 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 1980’s. 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]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

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]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by kalos72

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]

Originally Posted by unkated

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.