Would a modernized 160mm mortar be useful to modern armies?

[Rocket5050]

I recently saw a video where the 2S4 Tyulpan was being used in Ukraine and also saw one knocked out by the Ukrainian Army. This has led me to look at heavy mortars manufactured by Russia and Isreal. In particular, the M-160 made by Russia, and the M-66 made by Soltam in Isreal.
Both of the mortars are 160mm in caliber and they are towed. The M-160 from Russia is breech loaded while the M-66 is muzzle-loaded. You can also imagine both are extremely heavy. So heavy that I've seen both used in self-propelled mounts. Iraq mounted the M-160 to some old T-55s with the turrets removed and Isreal used the M-66 in old Shermans.
The M-160 has been used as late as the Syrian Civil War. For the most part, it appears most of the 160mm mortars are placed in reserve. It seems as if most countries use their 120mm mortars now as their heavy mortars. I can see why for the most part as the 160mm are heavy, slow to set up, and slow to reload compared to 120mm mortars.
If a defense contractor would offer a modernized towed 160mm mortar, do you think armies would be interested in it?

 

[Todjaeger]

I recently saw a video where the 2S4 Tyulpan was being used in Ukraine and also saw one knocked out by the Ukrainian Army. This has led me to look at heavy mortars manufactured by Russia and Isreal. In particular, the M-160 made by Russia, and the M-66 made by Soltam in Isreal.
Both of the mortars are 160mm in caliber and they are towed. The M-160 from Russia is breech loaded while the M-66 is muzzle-loaded. You can also imagine both are extremely heavy. So heavy that I've seen both used in self-propelled mounts. Iraq mounted the M-160 to some old T-55s with the turrets removed and Isreal used the M-66 in old Shermans.
The M-160 has been used as late as the Syrian Civil War. For the most part, it appears most of the 160mm mortars are placed in reserve. It seems as if most countries use their 120mm mortars now as their heavy mortars. I can see why for the most part as the 160mm are heavy, slow to set up, and slow to reload compared to 120mm mortars.
If a defense contractor would offer a modernized towed 160mm mortar, do you think armies would be interested in it?

A quick answer would be, "probably not..."

There is a reason why many nations' armies are really moving more towards self-propelled artillery either in place of or as a replacement for towed artillery. Basically towed pieces take too long to setup, fire, breakdown and then relocate, leaving both the gun and crew potentially exposed and certainly vulnerable to hostile fires, counter-battery fire, airstrikes, etc.

This is not so much of an issue for the much smaller, man-packed 60 mm and 81 mm mortars which are fielded as support weapons in infantry units mostly, and whilst a concern with the larger 120 mm mortars which are man-packed as I understand it, this is less so since the mortar itself is not dependent on vehicles to move (be towed) and with ammunition that can be feasibly carried by troops

IMO if one were to decide to start fielding a large mortar in the 120 mm or greater size it would be much better to be fitted as part of a self-propelled gun and preferably one that can be fired without leaving the gun crew completely exposed. More important than that though would be the need for there to be minimal setup and breakdown required between firing and relocating. With that in mind, mortar systems like the 120 mm AMOS would likely be a better option, or alternate systems with similar capabilities.

 

[Feanor]

I recently saw a video where the 2S4 Tyulpan was being used in Ukraine and also saw one knocked out by the Ukrainian Army. This has led me to look at heavy mortars manufactured by Russia and Isreal. In particular, the M-160 made by Russia, and the M-66 made by Soltam in Isreal.
Both of the mortars are 160mm in caliber and they are towed. The M-160 from Russia is breech loaded while the M-66 is muzzle-loaded. You can also imagine both are extremely heavy. So heavy that I've seen both used in self-propelled mounts. Iraq mounted the M-160 to some old T-55s with the turrets removed and Isreal used the M-66 in old Shermans.
The M-160 has been used as late as the Syrian Civil War. For the most part, it appears most of the 160mm mortars are placed in reserve. It seems as if most countries use their 120mm mortars now as their heavy mortars. I can see why for the most part as the 160mm are heavy, slow to set up, and slow to reload compared to 120mm mortars.
If a defense contractor would offer a modernized towed 160mm mortar, do you think armies would be interested in it? View attachment 49664View attachment 49665

It's important to note that even Russia isn't investing resources in new systems of the type. Russia has inherited a WW3 level stockpile of weapon systems from a former super power and is using them because... well why not? They already exist and Russia needs the artillery. However neither Russia, nor anyone else (save the DPRK) is investing in these systems. With good accuracy and good recon, 120mm mortars and 152/155mm artillery are more then adequate at this time.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Exception to precision removing the need for the 160mm mortar (the 120mm mortar can kill everything)

1. The answer is a solid no, and I'd say the direction is to go lower.

• Back when guided munitions weren't used, and aircraft carried GP bombs, it made sense to pack a smaller amount of larger bombs to drop on concentrations of AFVs, because the sheer power of these munitions even at a distance would practically eliminate even the most heavily armored AFVs, or at least mission-kill them.
• But guided munitions have incentivized using smaller munitions, because you don't really need all that power. You need to hit a target, and you need to kill it, while any excess means you're carrying extra weight that's only there to your detriment.

2. Take a look at drones today, they're so precise that they only need very light munitions, sometimes simple mortar shells or even hand grenades, to defeat heavily armored targets.

3. An almost anecdotal example is the AGM-114R that replaces the traditional warhead with deployable blades. It exists solely because the previous warhead was an overkill, and often inflicted unwanted damage, sometimes even killing innocent people nearby.

4. Only if we were to identify some type of target that would need the special care of mortars and not howitzers, and was somehow immune to 120mm shells, only then would there be some justification to find something bigger. But as it stands, there is nothing that can take a direct hit from a 120mm mortar to its roof and survive. And even if there was, chances are industry would sell you an armor piercing variant, or a modified air burst variant, before opting for a larger caliber.

5. You go bigger when industry tells you they exhausted all the upgrade potential of current systems.

• A weird example would be the MGCS. France and Germany are fighting over which gun to pick - 130mm or 140mm, both clearly larger than current 120mm tank guns. Both, however, are also forcing almost unbearable concessions upon any viable tank design.
• So how does it not bother those armies as much as we might think? Because in one aspect they do go bigger, but balance it by going smaller in other aspects. Instead of throwing a 130/140mm shell on a target, most targets would be dealt with by online precision fires, deployable small loitering munitions, and UGV companions.

 

[OPSSG]

1. If you look at UAE’s weapons supplied to its proxies in Yemen, it’s pretty amazing stuff. South Africa made RG-31 Agrab vehicle platform, Singapore made Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System (SRAMS) 120mm mortar, using Chinese Beidu satellite-guided mortars projectiles — China, UAE, Singapore and Isreal have charges that slip onto a modern 120mm precision round (instead of using bags as charges, like the Russian Army in Ukraine).

​

(a) This UAE integrated, self propelled mortar system makes the M-160 made by Russia, look like a joke in fire support.​

​

(b) Hirtenberger Defence, based in Austria, makes a range of modern 120mm mortar rounds, and it is the European sales agent for the Singapore designed 120mm Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System MkII (which is a more modern version of MkI sold to UAE).​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1508006997353971716

2. If you can’t afford the American made XM395 Precision Guided Mortar Munition (PGMM) 120 mm guided mortar round, Isreal, Singapore and China all make similar products that serve as superior 120mm substitutes to Russian 160mm mortar projectiles & charges (which is still a bag system, instead of modern charge rings).

3. This year, the Philippines Army received 15 new M125A2 armored mortar carriers with Cardom 120mm mortar systems developed by Israeli defense. Even the Indian Army has retired their 160mm Tampella Mortars.
4. The SAF was a past user of the M-66 made by Soltam. It was retired a long time ago, when the SAF decided to standardise on 120mm mortar rounds. The 120mm mortar can kill everything in Singapore’s threat matrix.

5. Given that the SAF’s 120mm SRAMS MkII mortar can fire 10rpm, it’s way superior to the M-66, in weight of fire, per minute of fire support. With a 10 km range at charge 9 (marginally longer ranged than SRAMS MkI sold to UAE), the Singapore made 120mm soft recoil mortar is far, far superior to the dated and craptastic Russian mortar charges (modern ring charges pack more energy to give the round a longer range up to charge 9 or max charge).

6. The SAF’s self-propelled soft recoil 120mm mortars are:

(a) mounted on the Bronco ATTC (SRAMS MkI); &

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1163449059463630850

(b) mounted on 4×4 Belrex (SRAMS MkII) — deploys 80% faster than a towed mortar and has a 67% higher rate of fire. Due to its automation and enhanced firing capabilities, it only takes a 3 man crew to operate, instead of 6 — this 120mm soft recoil mortar has the following features:​

• Advanced fire control system​

• Ammunition loading system​

• Patented blast diffuser​

• Fully electrical gun drive​

• Quick gun laying and stowage​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1567161279613370369

​

 

[Feanor]

5. Given that the SAF’s 120mm SRAMS MkII mortar can fire 10rpm, it’s way superior to the M-66, in weight of fire, per minute of fire support. With a 10 km range at charge 9 (marginally longer ranged than SRAMS MkI sold to UAE), the Singapore made 120mm soft recoil mortar is far, far superior to the dated and craptastic Russian mortar charges (modern ring charges pack more energy to give the round a longer range up to charge 9 or max charge).

I'm not an expert on mortars so it's hard for me to say, but I'm not sold that it's Russian technology that's that bad. Rather I think the armed forces botched their re-armament program vis-a-vis mortars. Russia had the 2S31 Vena available over a decade ago. But it didn't go into service for... reasons. It's actually going to go into service now (or at least it was before the war) with Arctic units under the name Magnolia, and VDV units under the name Lotos (2S42 iirc). But the ground forces were stuck purchased Nona-SVKs and tried the 2S34 Hosta, which apparently also didn't go ahead for some reason (though 2 btlns were purchased and went into service).

Meanwhile projects like the Vena, Floks, and various SP mortars on wheeled chassis remained in the design stage with only the Floks potentially going ahead some time in the future. The Russian defense industry had an offering of modern alternatives. The Land Forces proceeded with purchases of outdated equipment, and the VDV and Arctic units went ahead with the more ambitious option but on an extended timeline due to budgetary reasons. Russia has had several back and forth swerves in its rearmament program that have led to problematic situations like a complete lack of any reasonably modern SP mortar in service.

 

[STURM]

I'm not an expert on mortars so it's hard for me to say, but I'm not sold that it's Russian technology that's that bad.

I know this is a rabbit hole and slightly off topic given this is a thread on mortars but when you say that Russian tech isn't that bad is this in reference to mortars or other things?

Would agree that a lot of the issues Russia is experiencing in the Ukraine is due to various factors that are widely known [lack of manpower; not being trained or prepared for a war of this magnitude; poor planing, etc] and not inherent limitations with various weapons systems?

 

[Feanor]

I know this is a rabbit hole and slightly off topic given this is a thread on mortars but when you say that Russian tech isn't that bad is this in reference to mortars or other things?

Would agree that a lot of the issues Russia is experiencing in the Ukraine is due to various factors that are widely known [lack of manpower; not being trained or prepared for a war of this magnitude; poor planing, etc] and not inherent limitations with various weapons systems?

Mortars specifically. I do think Russia is somewhat behind the curve but not nearly as much as one would think when looking at Russia's actual mortar ops in Ukraine.