from Defense-Aerospace.Com:

 

and from Army.Mil (my bad, thought it was Military.Com where I found it):

 

The Army.Mil site featured this photo (bottom):

http://www.army.mil/-images/2006/12/18/1405/size1-army.mil-2006-12-18-095149.jpg" width=265 align=left border=0>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what gets me is:

can't anybody tell the difference between a Bradley hull and an M-113-based M1064 series mortar carrier?

 

http://www.army.mil/-images/2006/12/18/1405/size1-army.mil-2006-12-18-095149.jpg" width=265 border=0>

 

Does it look like a Bradley chasis to you? I think not!

Hell no it doesn't look like a Bradley hull.

 

You'd think even the US Army personnel could get it right. At least, surely someone at Rodriguez could've provided them with proper info.

 

This is the M1064 series mortar carrier:

 

http://www.uniteddefense.com/www.m113.com/M1064a3.GIF" width=216 align=left border=0>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone with proper vision can clearly see the front applique plate's shape doesn't match a Bradley:

 

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/images/brad4.jpg" width=300 align=left border=0>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...and although the pic with the aforementioned article doesn't show the chassis from the side,

any fool can see the M113/M1064 has 5, count 'em 5 road wheels per side,

whereas the Bradley has 6.

 

(things like this, a general lack of accuracy when identifying your own equipment, is one thing that kills credibility.

It's almost as bad as those media bums who think any military vehicle with tracks is a tank.)

 

Sorry for ranting, guys. But vehicle mis-identification has always been one of my biggest peeves!

I could understand it coming from some civilian media sources, but defense-related news groups should at least try harder (or maybe fire some editors).

 

 

 

Hey doggtag, it gets better...

I'm holding in my hand an official Army pub, and in the entry for the Bradley, the pic is actually of British Warriors...d'oh!

 

How cool would a mortar turret (capable of direct and indirect fire) on a Bradley chassis be??? It would be outstanding, in my opinion.

I doubt that it would ever be practical. Many similar things had been tried, and failed. M551 and BMP-2/3 are just prominent examples. Direct fire support is just different from indirect fire support. If someone brings in a mortar-gun carrier into combat, then he'll discover that cute vehicle is the first thing to be knocked out by enemy anti-tank weapons. Why buy a mortar-gun carrier when you will use them almost exclusively as mortar carrier?

Russians tried those gun-missile systems on their BMPs, but it just doesn't sound great. It looks formidable on paper, but all of them are the results of poorly executed projects. What will you use to destroy an enemy fortified concrete building? Fire continuous bursts of 30mm cannon, or several shots of 100mm HE shell? Both will work, but the choice will be complicated had enemy tanks might appear.

 

 

Several examples of improved M113s exist with 6 road wheels per side instead of 5,

United Defense's (BAe Systems') own MTVL variant:

http://www.uniteddefense.com/www.m113.com/Mtvl.GIF" width=252 border=0>

(this has been the greatest fantasy of Mike Sparks, to see these procured en masse as jack-of-all-trades do-everything platforms)

 

...and another we've discussed here at SP, Turkey's FNSS' ACV-S:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/acv-s/images/ACVS_4.jpg" width=270 border=0>

(which, in this config, the ill-informed may confuse with an actual Bradley, 25mm chain gun and all.)

 

As per whether or not gun mortars have any real battlefield potential, or if they're battle-unproven shiny new things that nations are buying solely for the newest and bestest bling appeal,

nations are buying the system, both the single barrel NEMO and its more well known twin barrel big brother, AMOS.

here's on of the latest: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=76980&session=dae.24039423.1166796600.RYvnOMOa9dUAAB-yTZM&modele=release

 

And Finland itself, being Patria's prime territory, has participated in trials of the AMOS twin on CV90s and the SISU 6x6.

 

Some really cool vids of the AMOS can be found over on YouTube & others (watching it fire from the CB90 Combat Boat is the coolest... and some time ago, someone posted up somewhere here on SP a Scandanavian (Sweden? Norway?) request/proposal for a modern-day riverine monitor/assault boat, one armed with the AMOS twin at the forward arc, and another with the NEMO single).

 

Would it work in today's situations such as A-stan and Iraq?

Indirect-fire 120mm mortars have already proven their worth. But many, until direct-fire capabilities are released, are skeptical about how the 120mm would perform in direct fire support mode.

Would it compare to the 105mm Stryker MGS, for example:

-it cannot match the 105mm M68 velocity, but

-a 120mm mortar shell, being thinner walled, carries a bit more explosive filler than 105mm tank shells.

 

I think it certainly bears consideration.

It's already been proven it can be fired (twin AMOS or single NEMO) from several platforms, can meet or exceed the range of current muzzle-loaded 120s (some claim 14km achievable), and has ideal MRSI (especially in the AMOS twin, with its rapid-burst-capable autoloader).

 

So I thought the actual Bradley chassis (M2 or 3) would be an ideal trials vehicle: remove the 25mm/TOW turret, internal 25mm & TOW ammo racks, lessen the scout/infantry requirement, and install 120mm ammo racks as fitted to other turntable-mounted, fire-thru-the-roof-hatch systems like the M1064.

Both the AMOS twin and NEMO single, either would ideally mount to a Bradley hull (considering an AMOS twin will mount on a stretched M113), without adding undo extra weight or height to the vehicle (compared to the original turret).

And I'd be willing to bet troops in Iraq would greatly appreciate the added punch several dozen 120mm shells offers over 25mm ammo and a limited number of TOWs per vehicle.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing a trial with maybe half a dozen vehicles, just to the troops see what they think (and can achieve) with the vehicle's potential capabilities.

With the FCS program's various platforms under considerable cost scrutiny (and technical delays),

suggesting a Bradley to carry the AMOS or NEMO isn't really a bad idea.

In all actuality, I could see the Bradleys mounting the AMOS twin, while the more rapid lighter brigades could be equipped with the M1064, but modded with a NEMO single turret. And for that matter, is there any reason a Strker couldn't kit out with the NEMO single, either? It seems to be a very low profile turret, and its automation advant

I found it hard for Armies other than Swedish and Norwegian to justify purchase of AMOS or NEMO. First, it doesn't use ordinary 120mm mortar rounds. To be able to take the role of direct fire support, the mortar-gun must have higher muzzle velocity, and new types of mortar rounds must be designed to cope with this requirement. Second, starndard mortar shells are stored in cans with their propellants. Fire missions of different ranges use different propellant sets, and unused propellants are sealed back into the can. Safe. Of course it can be done in a mortar-gun system with auto-loading mechanism, as long as money is poured in. Third, there are just as many types of 120mm mortar rounds as there are for 155mm howitzer. Of course, it can be solved in mortar-gun system, when more money is poured in. Besides, why do you need AMOS when you have M395?

I can't disagree more, Yelli.

What is the additional expense of a mortar on a turret, capable of direct fire? (I'm sure that the NEMO, et al., are quite expensive, but I'm also certain that it could be done "on the cheap" for alot less.) Compared to what it costs for the basic vehicle (which can be the same for turnstile or turret mountings) crew, training, ammo, etc, it is probably only a few percentage points more expensive. If I only ever use it for indirect fire, then that's fine. Compared to the price of one F-22, it's nothing at all. But there are definitely times when a target is best serviced by a direct-fire 120mm round, and given how eager so many people are to get rid of the heavy force and its M1 tanks, a direct fire mortar is the only place that they could possibly get it. While it pains me to use Iraq as an example, there are several combat vingettes where a tank used its 120mm, then, and only then, did the insurgents break and run away - they didn't want to face precisely aimed rounds from a big gun. Meanwhile, how often would that same mortar get to fire indirect? From the redlegs and mortarmen that I've spoken with, hardly ever. (Forgetting for a second about the Stryker MGS.)

 

True, its not heavily armored like an M1, but then again nothing else is. Sure, it will draw fire. Armored vehicles tend to do that. There are plenty of scenarios where the enemy doesn't have an effective anti-tank capability, or does and can't bring it to bear due to the conditions of the battlefield. At least a commander would have the capability if he needed it. Otherwise, his biggest weapons are 50 cal's and 40mm grenades.

There are plenty of ways of direct fire support. I remember Germans even put a 105mm howitzer on M113 chasis for that purpose. A mortar-gun, however, is not a mortar. It is a self-propelled mortar-gun, and it has its use, but only when there is no tanks or SPHs around. If tanks work well, then why not just bring in tanks? Even if there are some mortar-gun carriers (MGCs) around, they will be in battallion fire support company rather than mobile infantry company. In the end, the CO still has to wait for those MGCs come down to provide more punishment than his .50 Cals and 40mms.

 

Norwegian, Swedish and French made these system for some reason, but they don't solve the intrinsic problem of inaccuracy of fin-stab smooth bore mortar shells. AMOS is better suited as an areal suppression weapon rather than point-strike fire support unit. These things also have minimum engagement distance which they won't tell you in commercial, but the effectiveness of mortar-gun in direct firing mission is limited by both maximum effective rage (in direct mode) and minimum range. It is better to build an auto mortar to be just a mortar.

 

For big punches in direct fire, I think Sheridan's gun is more practical than mortar-gun. However, I always think this is the best solution:

http://tanxheaven.com/cent/fv4003avre165mm/avredetails/CNV00047.JPG" width=323 border=0>