Artillery pieces on armoured vehicles?

[Barry]

LAV -105 the MOWAGS Canadian cousin, just some info about it.

LAV 105MM (Gen III) (LAV-105)

That is not a self propelled gun. Again, it lacks any of the required equipment for indirect fire. Go and compare an AS90 with a Challenger 2, or a M109 with a M1, and you'll see there are big differences between a self propelled gun and a tank/other armoured vehicle.

And Max, there is no such thing as the "Armoured Mobile Artillery". There is the Artillery Corps, consisting of 6 Field Artillery Regiments and 1 Air Defence Regiment. We barely have enough Mowags for the infantry to train on and use operationally, to convert some to mortar carriers would be idiocy, and nothing of the sort will ever happen outside of a major "emergency"/war situation, in which case a large amount of field guns would also be needed

In Liberia it is extremely unlikely that there would be a hostile force that could not be dealt with by the Bn's organic mortar support. Infantry can peacekeep. Artillery can only kill en masse.

[Jungle]

LAV -105 the MOWAGS Canadian cousin, just some info about it.

LAV 105MM (Gen III) (LAV-105)

The first pic you posted is of the MGS; it is based on the LAV-III chassis, but is a DFS weapon (Direct Fire Support), and is topped with a low-profile turret sporting a tank gun that fires tank ammo.
In the second pic, you see a LAV-II chassis (Bison, Coyote) topped with a DFS 105mm gun. I'm not sure about the type, but it is a regular 2-man turret.
These are not artillery systems.

[Jungle]

No problem AATWT, I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing...
There are LAV-III mounted Arty systems in the works; look here: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-fifs-105.htm
You can also see the MAVS (Mobile Artillery Vehicle System) here: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-artymavs.htm

Good reading !!!

[The Blue Max]

Battalion Organic Motar Elememts comprise from 60mm to 81mm Mortars, During the Lebanon Deployment there was an attachment of Brandt 120mm Mortars Correct Me If Im Wrong Barry In the Lebanon situation (PEACE KEEPING) We had a Battalion serving there and they had same firepower i was suggesting be deployed with any future UNSAS/EURRF deployment to dangerous situations e.g West Africa,Middle East etc... They would provide Patrol Cmdrs of L.R.Ps with additional In-Direct Fire Support in a situation where patrol needs to recieve Fire Support rapidly they could quickly ingage the AMOS System Mortar System to cover any attack or removal from ambush etc..

This would also provide The Artillery Corp a more defined role in overseas ops instead of just having to deploy 105s (If they ever did) or be intergrated part of INF COY they could more utilize them in the skills they were trained for i.e Arty Spt. They could deploy trained crew to man these Mortar equiped Mowags and also this Mowags could be used to carry troops inrear also.

In new roles the Irish Army will undertaking they may primarily be in (PEACE ENFORCEMENT) these new mission have more enhairent dangers then previous ones as entering Conflict Situations not only Keep The Peace but also have numourous tasking with PEACE ENFORCEMENT we there to enforce laws and legislation passed down by the UN with UNSAS missions and in the near future possibly missions laid down by the EU with EURRF Operations thes missions will bring new threat ,tasks and challenges the days of standard infantry elelment are fading and they will be more and more places for Corps like The Artillery to deploy as a true Arty Element and display there capabilties as Gunners and the like instead of just as attached Infanry troops in a Battalion.

There may Coem a Day When Irish Forces Will Come Into A Conflict Situations On A Long Range Patrol Were The Likes Of *Light Artillery (Mortar) Support Will Be Used To Support Troops

[andy]

risk of going off thread here (maybe a new thread can be started) but...

whats the main advantages in having mortars in APC's vs mortars that infantry carry ? Is it something the DF should be aiming towards ?

I met a US soldier once who didnt think much of the APC version. I guess it depends on the scenario.

I thought a mortar APC would be better for shoot and scoot, re inforcing friendly forces near the front line of a battle and extremely easy to move around the battlefield.

MAybe a mix is best ???

[The Blue Max]

These Type Of Vechicles Operate In Conditions And Climates From The Arid middle East To The Nordic Poles Of Scandivinavia With Great Reliabilty And Praise By There Forces

They will offer are forces are a small dedicated Operational/Training (OCU) Cadre Unit 6-8 Vechicles that could be based/attached to the Artillery School,Curragh Camp,Co.Kildare they could be deployed as part of a Battalion Organic Mobile Artillery Support provided extra In-direct fire Support on the likes of LRPs or other operations they could also provide the capabilty to house personal in the back of the APC.

These 120mm AMOS System could share same ammunition as future Barreled 120mm (120mm Brandt Mortar Replacements when Ever It Selected to Replace Them!) providing interoperability with Arty Ammo Stock etc..The reason I feel they would be a great asset to overseas units as they are very mobile,very quick lay out time "Only Seconds To Set Up And Fire First Round" they will provide extra protection to troops when entering uncertain enemy areas on the likes of LRPs i.e Liberian situations where they are hundreds of miles from Base Camp on patrol and if they get attacked could call rapidly into action support from the AMOS 120mm Mortar to direct fire or smoke etc.. on enemy positions. It would also provide essential time for 60mm Vecktor Mortar teams to set up there systems and provide additional support.

These are some of the reasons why i think a small dedicated unit of Mowag equiped AMOS Mortars Systems would give the Defence Forces a Tremandous capabiltys utilising a asset we are already well use to like the mowag as the platform and a system already in service with are current and probly future supporting nations such as Finland and Sweden it would im sure be a great reassurance for deployed troops knowing that kind of support was there to support them if the need arose especially when operating an area of known enemy occupation or when they are so far from base.

[FMolloy]

I was under the impression that there was either no ammo left, or no more ammo being bought, for the 120mm mortars.

At present, the DF's mortars are towed - the 81's in a trailer pulled by a Nissan and the 120's by a truck. In both cases, the mortar crews would have trouble keeping up with the Mowags. A mortar carrying variant would allow the crews to travel at the same pace as the APC's. Mortars mounted in an APC would also be quicker into action as they wouldn't need to be set up.

I have heard that such carriers have been suggested, but whether or not the DF get them is another thing. If they were to be purchased, then you'd see most of them going overseas & a few being retained here for training.

There's two types of mortar carrier - one that mounts the mortar in the hull and one that mounts it in the turret.


The turrets offer more protection for their crews, but they would be more expensive. The open-topped, hull-mounted mortars are cheaper, but expose their crews to danger. An open-topped mortar carrier would allow the DF to mount either 81mm or 120mm mortars, it seems that the companies making the turrets only offer 120mm types nowadays.

[FMolloy]

Given the situations an Irish battalion is likely to find itself in (peacekeeping & peace enforcement alongside other nations) perhaps an open-topped carrier would suffice. I would think that a 120mm mortar would be preferable to an 81mm. Modern 120mm mortar gives good performance in both range and power, with guided munitions availible if the money was there for them.

If proper artillery is required then maybe a variation of the MOBAT (as mentioned elsewhere) would fit the bill:


With the DF now using the L119, which fires fixed ammunition, it should be possible to get some mounted on a suitable chassis. Again, it could be argued that the DF doesn't need proper self-propelled artillery.

[Jungle]

Here's another example of a MOBAT-type arrangement:
It's a Yugoslav 105mm M-56 howitzer, mounted on a (Serbian ?) truck.
We also use a mortar-carrier variant of the Bison; http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/Engl...=26&uSection=1

[The Blue Max]

Amasing to have decent responses to a post, I usually just get critisism LOL. Yes like i said previously and same as FMolloy has agreed with me these vechicles would be of great bonus to are deployed forces and bring a new era to Artillery Corps operating overseas.

Personnally i think it would be more approiate if the DF if ever aquired such types that be turret equipped as they would be safer fors crews working envirioment from enemy fire etc.. and would allow extra space to be left in the back of the APC for other dismountable elements such possibe a Infantry Recce or FOO party etc.. Just as an example or even be fitted with better sensors in the vechicle to improve the Mortars changes of locating enemy locations i.e counter battery strikes etc..

[FMolloy]

There's no room for dismounts in vehicles mounting the turreted mortars. All available room is taken up with ammo. FOO parties should be closer to the fighting than the mortars anyway.

[The Blue Max]

Are you sure any photos of these version internally?? I was under the impression that it was the opposite that Turret equipped versions had some space available in the back of the vechicle maybe 3-4 seats considerin that 8 personnel can be transported with the 30mm Equiped Mowags recently selected by the Army and i would have taught that the opened topped mortar configurations would have had less space then any of the versions.

[Goldie fish]

The 30mm on the New Mowag is the vehicles weapon for self defence. A mortar in an afv as described above is the weapon, carried by the vehicle is not a defensive weapon.

[FMolloy]

There's no room in either type of mortar carrier for anyone other than the crew. The space normally used for dismounts is taken up with ammunition. 120mm rounds take up a fair bit of space, and in order for the weapon to have a decent amount of ammo to hand the vehicle has to carry as much as possible. Putting dismounts in it would mean that resupply would be more frequent.

The turrets mounting 120mm mortars and 30mm cannon might be the same size, but the ammo the weapons fire isn't. That's why there's room in one type and not the other. There's no reason for a mortar carrier to carry anyone or anything else anyway. A mortar carrier has one role - to put indirect fire on a target. Making it carry OP personnel or mortar locating radar muddies the waters and makes it a Jack of all trades, but master of none.

[The Blue Max]

"Making it carry OP personnel or mortar locating radar muddies the waters and makes it a Jack of all trades, but master of none"

I like thats answer it was a classy one!