Royal Marine Artillery

News and discussion threads concerning defence personnel and their units.
Post Reply
J. Tattersall

Royal Marine Artillery

Post by J. Tattersall »

Not a plea for the RM Light Infantry and RM Artillery to be demerged after nearly a century but rather a thought that if the ongoing RM restructuring (Future Commando Force) throws up savings in RM numbers then might not the army ask for some of its soldiers back from units like 29 Cdo Regt RA (to fill army gaps) and tell the RM to backfill some of the army posts in 3 Cdo Bde with marines it no longer needs in the mainstream RM. The RM might not be able to generate an artillery regiment sized unit but they might man a subunit or fill individual army gaps in the bde. Same logic goes for Cdo engineers etc.

Any thoughts?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Marine Artillery

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

v bad indeed.

Would turn the force to Vatican Swiss Guard 2.0
- all these specialisms take scale to train with, and then master
-the current reverse training (the specialists taking the Commando course) works

Why not let the guys loose and let them improve their kit, like what was tried out with Ch2 crews:
https://dutchforce21.files.wordpress.co ... innemo.png
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Royal Marine Artillery

Post by jedibeeftrix »

if the recent paper on the future commando force is any judge of the future then the artillery is almost more important than the light infantry function.

J. Tattersall

Re: Royal Marine Artillery

Post by J. Tattersall »

Which paper its that? Do you have a link to it?


J. Tattersall

Re: Royal Marine Artillery

Post by J. Tattersall »

Interesting and I agree the future importance of artillery. My point is still that if the army has a shortage of gunners and the navy can save some Royal Marines billets then might not the army ask the navy to retrain some of these savings to become artillery trained?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Marine Artillery

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote: if the army has a shortage of gunners
"If"? Anything pointing to that?

While we are on the topic 81 mm mortars are classed as infantry weapons and 120 mm as artillery
... high time for the RM to get some of the latter (little used from USMC?)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Marine Artillery

Post by Lord Jim »

I have often had trouble with the split in ownership of different sizes of Mortars in the British Military. Many other nations have 120mm Mortars within their Infantry Battalion sized units and it is something we should have adopted along time ago, especially with the shrinkage in the number of Royal Artillery Regiments and their traditional split of either heavy (AS-90 & tracked GMLRS) and light (!05mm Light Guns).

What was proposed in the RUSI paper is a capability the UK should aspire to if funding can be made available, and it will take the commitment of what would be not insubstantial resources to achieve. The adoption of a Self Propelled 120mm Mortar and HIMARS are a topic many will recognise as something of a crusade of mine, though regarding the former the use of Supercat based platforms for those units to be assigned to support the Royal Marines is one I would challenge. The reason for this is that they already operate a platform that is more than adequate for the role and is in number of way a far better fit, and that is the Viking. This has the benefits of being far better across country especially in the condition that would be met operating in the far north, provides superior armoured protection, is amphibious for crossing water obstacles and has a grater carrying capacity. It should be a fairly simple task to install a soft recoil 120mm on the rear section of a Viking, possibly one that has automatic gun laying and/or semi automatic loading capabilities to speed up the time take to carry out a fire mission. With the Mortar crew in the from cab and the mortar plus two dozen or so ready rounds in the rear cab, backed by a munitions carrier variant carrying substantially more rounds, a group a three such paring and a command variant would easily be able to carry out the desired indirect fire support mission. To this could be added a number of ARTHUR radars, similar to those leased for use in Afghanistan and mounted on Bv20r all terrain vehicles but if purchased should be mounted on the Viking chassis. Another option would be to mount a weapon system like Extractor on the rear cab to provide both a precision strike and anti armour over watch capability. Having six such platforms together with the nine Mortar teams as the support company would greatly increase the fire support of a "Mobile" Commando, such as that which would follow up the initial landing described in the RUSI paper, providing heavier support for the lighter companies already ashore and bridge to capability gap to the Army Formation following up. Alternatively broken down some fo these could be landed with the first wave, supporting the initial three companies.

The MoD is currently looking to replace its remaining Bv206 vehicles that are currently used in a supporting role within 3 Commando Brigade with a new platform and the front runner is the latest variant of the Viking. I would suggest that this would be a logical decision, and that the number of Viking that should be purchased should be enough to bring the total to a level where and entire Commando with its support units could be mounted in the platform. The Viking has proven itself in other terrain besides the far north, most notably Afghanistan, so I see no reason that with the introduction of additional variants should not allow tis single platform to be able to carry out all the roles required in a Royal Marine Commando, from Mortar Carrier, to Command Vehicle to Engineering platform. It is light enough to be carried by a Chinook and small enough that multiple could be carried by a singe landing craft. It is simply the logical choice.

J. Tattersall

Re: Royal Marine Artillery

Post by J. Tattersall »

Just a few observations on a well articulated response by Lord Jim. 120mm mortar has less range than 105mm light gun so one would presumably have to use it to supplement the light gun rather than replace it?

One assumes that it could replace the 81mm mortar, with a suitable vehicle, however by the same token would not the logistics footprint also significantly increase? 120mm ammunition weighing considerably more than 81mm. Is that increase in logistical burden desirable for a light force such as the RM?

You mention Exactor, or something similar. Might that not offer a way out of the conundrum of wanting improved indirect fire but without dramatically increasing logistical burden, i.e. a precision attack weapon means one needs less of them to destroy the target. I would also say 105mm precision guided shell for this, but I'm not sure anyone makes them.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Royal Marine Artillery

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Re: "120mm mortar has less range than 105mm light gun so one would presumably have to use it to supplement the light gun rather than replace it?"

If the working assumption is that Himars is a integral part of this revised 3Cdo role, then is any deficit in 120mm mortar vis-a-vis the 105mm light still a deal-breaker?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Marine Artillery

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

more observations:

The already mentioned mortar range means that is it not realistically a counter-battery weapon. While trying to stay within the confines of what is meant to be a small-ish and light unit, there are many (most?) circumstances where one cannot omit that capability. Number one option: Apaches - though they might not always be there. Number two: Exactors as they come, on a trailer. Means that it is 'not particular' to which variety of our transport helos happen to be in support of the landed unit.

Moving on, and talking about 'landing'. The current 50/50 of Coys on wheels/ tracks and without means that a single Bay can land all the vehicles, say Vikings, for the 2 coys of a Cdo that are meant to have them.To land twice as many would use up 100% of available (Insert: IF here) Bays as long as one is required in the Gulf as the MCM mothership - which is likely to be for many years to come.

But, yes 120 mm (rifled, from US 'surplus') would be a good option.Anything goes, though: this Israeli one is called 'smart' which somehow - haven't read the text that goes with the image - helps to reduce the crew to two. If you reduce both the crewing and the vehicle weight/ dimensions https://www.israeldefense.co.il/sites/d ... k=9ejGK_Me then it is easier to compensate for the reduced load of rounds with plenty of the Coyotes that we already have.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply