Defense of the Republic of the Philippines

One reason, why im pushing for these.
I interviewed the simba units attached to 10th ID , they welcome the idea of installing 60mm mortar inside the turret. They welcome the idea of indirect fire capability. These simba crews are veteran in maguindanao against MILF since 2000. The common problem why they cant move fast into MILF position because of RPG-2 threat. When they fire their 0.50 cal HMG, MILF simply hide in the drainage canals. they have wait for 81mm mortar and 105mm fire and even air support just get within 200 to 300 meters distance. These crews need to have a indirect fire capability so they can use it anytime they need one. They dont have to wait for mortar battery or 105 battery for them to move. Fire support are delayed most of the time. These are frustrating for them . They have to wait before they can move forward to retrieve and rescue their wounded because of RPG-2 threat. According to them,they wait for 30 minutes to one hour the most before fire support comes. Troops speaks freely when no senior officers are around. They encourage me to post that idea. For they need it. These crews are senior NCO's with 20 yrs in field experience. They even lamented why Mk 19 was removed from simba. They even have idea how MK-19 can be installed back without exposing the gunner.

A year ago i post it  hoping AFP will catch this idea. The need for indirect fire is real and badly needed, be in the jungle, in the rice paddies, be it in the MOUT. the idea of firing a 60mm mortar inside the turret, protected from sniper fire, machine gun fire and far from rpg-2 range is a game changer for our troops.

From the perspective of ground troops , a quick indirect fire is life -saver and time -saver. for them it is personal when your buddy lying wounded but  you are constrained because of RPG-2 threats. Most them makes unnecessary risk just to rescue wounded troops. Sometimes they are lucky.

for size , if observed carefully, it wont occupy a 500mm wall vertical space and  300mm horizontal space on left side wall. 15 rounds can be stowed by 2 boxes.

The light tanks are supposed to provide direct fire support when lighter weapons (whether man-portable or vehicle-borne) like the RPG-7, M67 recoilless rifle, M242 Bushmaster or the 76mm cannon aren't enough.

The infantry already have mortars of various calibers if they need to hit a target that warrants indirect fire. Not to mention the Mechanized Infantry's new mortar carriers which can carry either 81mm or 120mm mortars.

An additional turret mortar would be largely superfluous for these vehicles' intended role. There are already other assets that could to the same job.

In addition we are talking about mechanized infantry assets. The armored vehicles do not go in alone. They have accompanying infantry assets and other supporting forces to help them. Direct fire support assets have a specific job within the combined arms doctrine, as do others. If there is a need for indirect fire support, then they can call indirect fire support (that's one of the benefits of the new communications and battle management suites that the Philippine Army has been acquiring from Elbit). As it is, having to carry around more ammunition for another onboard weapons system could detract from the main purpose of the asset.

Lastly, equipment acquisitions should be dependent on needs. The Marawi siege highlighted the need for more powerful mobile direct fire support assets. If the Army ever needs any of its direct fire support vehicles to have mortars, then they would ask for mortars. As it is, they are incorporating them as separate, dedicated assets.

IDF have a lot of experience in MOUT compared to us. They installed 60mm in merkava mark 1 up to mark 4. They knew the value of a 60mm mortar as a complement to the main gun and HMG. They have 81mm/120mm mortar/155mm howitzer batteries mounted in M109 and superior air support  available at their disposal. Merkava tank crew can call anytime for fire support from these artillery teams . They have more advance battlefield communication and real-time information sharing within their combat teams . Why they retain the 60mm mortar despite the availability of 81mm/120mm and 155 howitzer ? merkava tank dont operate alone but fight as a combine team.
 
This video :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS6KG2LoAMQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

confirms the usefulness of 60mm mortar .  Imagine in this video, the point of impact of mortar bomb is a fox hole occupied by enemy anti-tank team waiting for merkava tank to expose itself for a clear shot. The tank commander expressed his satisfaction when his crew hit the desired mark . This video was taken in IDF live fire exercise. If IDF didnt find 60mm mortar useful , why they toke time to train their tank crews in firing this mortar? The tank crew did not  have to bother calling their 120mm mortar battery to pound one foxhole when it can be done by firing their 60mm mortar.

 It takes time to call to mortar battery team , then time for approval of battalion commander and time to redirect the mortar battery ,then more time to prepare the right mortar bombs and calculate the right charge until the first bomb drops to the desired target plus more adjustment until fire for effect order is given.  We can say five to ten minutes at the best , but probably wait for 20 minutes if the mortar battery is still busy in engaging a more priority target. The worst one hour wait ,probably of other factors beyond control of mortar battery. Let us add pressure to the tank commander ,he is tasked by the battalion commander to arrive in designated area within 10 minutes but cannot go forward because a well entrenched anti tank team waiting at the corner. Tank commander will have to risk exposing his tank to fire direct tank rounds hoping to eliminate it. The enemy anti-tank team now have the chance to fire RPG-29 when the tank is now exposed. This scenario is plausible in MOUT. If the tank have a 60mm mortar , it can destroy the well entrenched anti tank team  without exposing itself ,then it can proceed to its designated area on time.
 
AFP should learn more from IDF on how they used their merkava and namer  in MOUT and what are the valuable lessons of using 60mm mortar(mounted in merkava tank)in MOUT scenario.

INDIRECT FIRE CAPABILITY FOR SABRA LIGHT TANK.

indirect fire capability ( 60mm mortar) is already a proven weapon system installed in merkava tanks and namer IFV. In MOUT scenario, 60mm mortar is indispensable and effective to target enemy combatants hiding behind, walls, behind buildings, hiding inside trenches, firing in reverse slopes and firing on top of buildings or structures. During Marawi siege, 60mm and 81mm mortars were used to hit targets hiding behind walls and buildings. Indirect fire capability (60mm mortar)is an effective weapon for phil. army Sabra light tank.

These are the links as references.

http://defenseph.net/drp/index.php?topic=2882.msg9040#msg9040

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS6KG2LoAMQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I hope AFP weapons technical committee or its equivalent will consider this additional weapon for new Sabra light tank purchase.

Good reviews on m32a1 milkor

https://www.defence24.com/40-mm-pocket-artillery-offered-by-the-polish-armaments-group

https://www.arsenal-bg.com/c/40x46-mm-rounds-low-velocity-for-grenade-launchers-arsenal-ubgl-m-family-m-203-hk-69-etc-nato-launchers-110/40x46-mm-rlv-hedp-rlv-hedp-1-and-rlv-hedp-2-104

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/milkor-m32-and-m32a1-40mm-grenade-launchers/

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/tm3_22x31.pdf

https://www.defensereview.com/new-and-improved-milkor-mgl-mk-1s-multiple-40mm-grenade-launcher-for-specops/

https://olive-drab.com/od_infweapons_grenade_launchers_m32.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Flw-_4rRjiI

https://www.milkorusa.com/product/m32a1-usmc-40mm-v-02/

https://militaryleak.com/2019/01/03/milkor-grenade-launcher-product/

https://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20200714202033.aspx

" Chinese communist predatory behavior long predates 2016, but in retrospect, Beijing's appalling reaction to the ruling clearly demonstrated the CCP could not be trusted to abide by even the most meticulously negotiated treaty. The CCP's June 2020 decision to break the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 and impose its authoritarian laws on Hong Kong reinforced the ugly lesson that treaties with communist China do not protect smaller nations and territories from Chinese theft and absorption.

Reneging on treaties, spurning just verdicts and, of course, seizing territory without suffering severe consequences tells China's leaders that its opponents are weak and lack the will to resist. Undermining, co-opting and ultimately dominating global diplomatic and economic institutions; public and private organizations; and methods of interaction is another CCP goal. Revealing weakness forwards this line of operation.


For decades, the U.S. Navy has conducted Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS). During a FONOP, a Navy vessel enters contested waters and demonstrates American opposition to maritime territorial claims that intrude on international shipping lanes. In 2015, the U.S. began regular FONOPS specifically challenging China's spurious claims in the South China Sea.

In 2016, the U.S. limited its response to China's rejection of the tribunal ruling. Washington strongly criticized China's mistreatment of the Philippines, encouraged diplomatic and defense cooperation among southeast Asian nations, and continued the FONOPS, but it avoided a direct, "great power" diplomatic confrontation with Beijing.

The Hong Kong invasion, China's cyber hacking, China's pervasive espionage operations and its duplicity regarding the COVID-19/Wuhan virus pandemic have finally convinced senior American leaders that a CCP-led China only respects power, and only greater power can deter its ambitions.

On July 13, 2020, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a "strengthened" U.S. policy in the South China Sea that specifically aligns American policy with the tribunal's decision. "Beijing's claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them," Pompeo said. "(W)e seek to preserve peace and stability, uphold freedom of the seas in a manner consistent with international law, maintain the unimpeded flow of commerce, and oppose any attempt to use coercion or force to settle disputes."

Calling CCP-led China an unprecedented threat, he succinctly described Beijing's theft and extortion racket. "Beijing uses intimidation to undermine the sovereign rights of Southeast Asian coastal states in the South China Sea, bully them out of offshore resources, assert unilateral dominion, and replace international law with 'might makes right.'"

Pompeo backed his statement with a promise: "America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources, consistent with their rights and obligations under international law."

Protection: Since China ignores treaties, protecting means employing American military might."

I think this problem arises from the design of the sight of the mortar. the sight of M6-210 model is installed at the bottom to facilitate prone position . This can be disorienting if you fire from kneeling position. Compared to Denel M4 60mm mortar and Antos 60 mm mortar where the sight is installed with natural line of sight .

the sight system of Denel M4 model and Antos are shown here. The sight is installed at the top end of the tube.

http://admin.denel.co.za/uploads//M4_60.pdf

http://www.vop.cz/images/file/60%20mm%20ANTOS%20ENG.pdf

These sight design differs from hirtenberger M6-210 sight design . The level bubble installed at the bottom or base of the tube has slight inaccuracy issue unlike to the sight level bubble installed at the top end of the tube. The sensitivity of level bubble on the top end is greater compared to bottom installed.

https://www.defenceprocurementinternational.com/Content/Profiles/hirtenberger-defence-systems-the-mortar-company/hds-60mm-cdosystem-folder-a4-ansicht.pdf

This is just my observation.

this is the british army views in deploying platoon based hand fired or commando mortar. It states here contradicting views . the first statement says that first shot missed the target and requires second round to hit the target and plan to replace it  with carl gustav and multi-shot grenade launcher. But in the second statement that mortar and sharpshooter rifle are the professional killer of its weapon in platoon level. This is the link.

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2018/03/infantry-modernisation-british-army.html

This is just my observation. Carl Gustav 84mm RR and M6-210 60mm mortar are two different weapon system that has two differing role ,capability and limitation.  RR is a direct -fire ,line of sight and flat trajectory weapon platform. The M6-210 mortar is indirect -arch trajectory weapon platform.

The forerunner of modern commando mortar or patrol mortar was the 2 inch mortar of british army started in WW2. It was also use by british commonwealth nations and colonies .  These are some of the links ;

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/2-inch_mortar

https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/material/artillery/2-inch-mortar

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ordnance_SBML_2-inch_mortar

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0645160.pdf

https://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=504

https://twitter.com/WW2Facts/status/1279124290353467392

http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/battlefield-history-relics/wwii-2-inch-mortar-tail-fin-stamps-examples-689009/

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/293648838194314104/

https://gmic.co.uk/topic/68021-2-inch-mortar-bomb-markings/

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-armour/allied/bren_carrier.htm

https://brooklynwargaming.com/tag/2-inch-mortar/

https://www.army.mod.uk/umbraco/Surface/Download/Get/11615

https://www.army.mod.uk/umbraco/Surface/Download/Get/11772

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=91:british-mortars-of-the-second-world-war&catid=47:british&Itemid=59

https://www.battleorder.org/uk-rifle-co-1944

US army and marines deploys 60mm M224 as commando mortar or handheld fire mode is Afghanistan. The troops notes the effectiveness against insurgents.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmcdy-_8p6Q&t=371s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T8-PSstlT0&t=24s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIry04rMGo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeUiQWM6P2g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hdLhwJ64mU

US army and marines trains troops on M224 mortar in handheld fire mode. Using trigger to fire mortar rounds effective. This notes its effectiveness in combat deployments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfkOeHQXAaM&t=11s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp6u7REWRyM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=919eVW1Cpj4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg_XJiY-1MI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l2JF2wT-dw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=919eVW1Cpj4