Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1193118
MOŹDZIERZ SAMOBIEŻNY RAK RAK computer. The whole system is mounted on a 1×1 m platform that can be integrated on any carrier. The idea seems to be good on paper. But it also fuses the disadvantages exhibited by towed and automatic mortars. The combat compartments are not sealed, thus not only is the crew exposed to NBC threats, but also to fragmentation and, above all, the weather. The above also applies to the fragile loading systems with multiple motors. The Czech experience with the Pandur platforms and Polish experience gathered with regards to weather tested RCWS-30 and UTD-30 turrets would justify an expectation of problems with reliability of such open-top designs in the Central European operational context. Secondly, the rate of fire is usually lower than the declared 10 rpm (6-8 rounds would be far more realistic). The range is usually shorter than in case of the conven- tional designs. Stability of the platform may also turn out to be problem- atic in case of the vehicles that remain lighter than APCs. Furthermore, the cost is much higher than the price tag associated with towed mor- tars, even when those are fitted with modern fire control systems. This is influenced by a complicated design of the motors and of the autoloader. The only advantage here is seen in high level of operational safety and quick reaction time and ability to leave the firing position rapidly - in both cases, less than 30 sec. The last group includes standard towed mortars set up on rotating platforms – in combat compartments of modified IFV/APC platforms. US M1064 mortar on the M113 carrier (with M120 mortars in the combat compartment) is one of the examples here. Another American system is M1129 mortar carrier – RMS6L 120 mm mortar on a Stryker IFV. Thus, these systems are often considered to be a perfect compromise between affordability, mobility and firepower. However, carefully studying FM- 3.22-90 and ST 3-22.7 manuals, one cannot come to a conclusion that those are better than self-propelled turret mortars. Reasons for that are multiple. M1129 crew, at the expert gunner level needs 45 sec to engage targets, 80 sec being the maximum acceptable time when being tested (mortar in "stowed" position with the muzzle cover removed, M67 sight stored securely in a box, closed ammunition shelves and twin hatch in the topside of the mortar compartment). All of that is being done in manual mode. If automated fire control system is to be involved, the times above are even longer and they go up to 50 and up to 95 sec. Paradoxically, the times here are identical to the ones applicable to the 120 mm M-120 towed mortars. The time needed to leave the firing position is a major advantage of designs such as M1129. It is also possible to immediately leave it with the hatches open, but with a speed limit of 15 kph, as open hatches are hazardous for the crew off-road (each of the hatches weighs 180 kilograms and the locking mechanisms can easily fail). Meanwhile, simplified procedure aimed at lowering the RMS6L barrel and closing the hatches takes 15-20 sec. The mortar itself has a range between 180 and 6,700 m – relevantly shorter than in case of other designs. Due to the tight crew compartment and ergonomics, the horizontal rotation range available for the mortar is greatly limited. The crew is not protected from the weather and from the WMD. Ammunition storage space is another advantage (48 120 mm rounds). The vehicle may also carry another mor- tar (81 or 60 mm). Rate of fire is also quite impressive, ranging from 16 (theoretical) to 8-10 (practical) rpm. Undoubtedly however, M1064 or M1129 are better than their towed counterparts, mainly thanks to the short period of time required to leave their firing position. This makes them suitable to work in an environment where counter-battery fire is Wizualizacje: JHSW VEHICLES