US Army Debuts Advanced Mortar System During Live Demonstration

Рет қаралды 59,062

Defense News

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 120

@evilfingers4302 Ай бұрын

About time the US Army is adopting such a system that has been around for years and in use with NATO Allies.

@BackyardDogPark9862 Ай бұрын

The American Army should hire you to point these things out to them.

@eddieBoxer Ай бұрын

Not good for light / Airborne Infantry, been there, we need 11C mortor crew to walk with the Infantry company. cannot go through dense woods, to heavy for light Infantry.

@BackyardDogPark9862 Ай бұрын

@@eddieBoxer Why not both?

@swampfireian41 Ай бұрын

@@eddieBoxerPretty sure that’s why they mentioned this is designed for Armored and Stryker BCTs, not IBCTs that the 82nd, 11th and 101st have. So this isn’t meant to be used with airborne or air assault units, anyway. It’ll be used by units like 1st Cav, 1st Armored, etc.

@swampfireian41 Ай бұрын

@@BackyardDogPark9862Airborne units need vehicles that are capable of airborne deployment alongside them, which is why you don’t see them with any Stryker or Abrams (Armored) Brigade Combat Teams. All three Airborne/Air Assault divisions only have Infantry Brigade Combat Teams, whose vehicles do not include Strykers or Abrams tanks. They’re all light vehicles like Humvees. This is one reason why the Army is looking at the M10 Booker as a light armored vehicle capable of airborne deployment, rather than try building a Stryker or Abrams model capable of it. This system, the Patria NEMO, is being designed to supplement Stryker and Armored BCTs rather than Infantry BCTs, probably due to weight constraints preventing airborne deployment and practicality in deploying a mobile mortar system with airborne troops, rather than an Infantry or Armored Fighting Vehicle, like the M10 is supposed to be.

@pj-tg3lm Ай бұрын

Nemo from Finland

@petter5721 Ай бұрын

It is 15 years old but Sweden bought some for the marines 😀

@jaripukki267 Ай бұрын

@@petter5721 so will US marines and germany

@HanSolo__ Ай бұрын

When I said: "It would be nice to get the licence production of Nemo in Poland and adopt the modern system" I was laughed off and called an idiot etc. There.

@elioelio3276 Ай бұрын

❤ like from Latvia 🇱🇻

@zepter00 Ай бұрын

@@HanSolo__ Poland have own equivalent of Nemo. It is called Rak 10mm automatic mortar system and is produced and bought by army in big numbers. we will not buy anything from Finland.

@billlhooo6485 Ай бұрын

I like when the army have a protective shell than leaving it in the open air.

@nathanielwhite8769 Ай бұрын

@@billlhooo6485 Yes, absolutely agree, as I feel any system that requires the crew to be exposed whilst firing the Mortar or Howitzer, to my mind, will be rendered obsolete due to the shear speed of Counter Battery Target Acquisition on today’s Battlefield. Even if we are just talking about the HE Fragmentation Projectile threat. Cheers.

@beibei93 Ай бұрын

This is the way.

@charleslennonbaker Ай бұрын

@@beibei93 "Victory is LIFE!"

@erroneous6947 Ай бұрын

I personally think mortar carriers are a great idea. Also smart to use bradly hulls. It’s an existing platform no need to train new maintenance crews.

@gurkagurkadurka6688 Ай бұрын

With counterbattery technology getting quicker and more effective every day, as well as drones completely changing the battlefield paradigm, the old "shoot and scoot" strategy is more important now than ever. Towed artillery is becoming pretty niche.

@joefresh3725 Ай бұрын

looks like this thing does "shoot WHILE scooting"

@HanSolo__ Ай бұрын

@@joefresh3725 It does. Hitting moving targets.

@ericepperson8409 Ай бұрын

If the reports are to be believed, Ukraine has been using the hell out of MaxxPro MRAPS to get around the battefield quickly with plenty of protection from from most dangers. Anything it can't shrug off, it outruns!

@Soulessdeeds Ай бұрын

Allot more roomy than the M113 mortar carriers. And definitely better protection for the crews. Also the M2 Bradley hulls are reliable and easy to repair and perform crew maintenance. Great platform.

@rogerthat4545 Ай бұрын

And a 113 isn't reliable and easy to repair?? Helll, my lawn mower is more complex than a 113. But yeah, the Bradley is a better vehicle, especially with the new engine it's not as underpowered as it once was.

@charleslennonbaker Ай бұрын

Having served as a Medic in an Infantry MECH unit, I routinely pulled medical coverage for the Mortar Plt. By extension, I loaded charges, hung rounds down range, like everyone else, and even "kicked the tube" a few times ( a Doc's job is never clear cut.) My favorite rounds were 60mm, of course. That said, I've been out for more than 25 years, and seeing the advancements in mortars is incredible. It brings an improved dynamic to the battlefield. But what caught me off guard was the weapon system's adaptability as a naval weapon system. Harking back to 'The Nam Brown Water Navy, which regularly used boat-mounted mortars and grenade launchers, this weapon system could potentially turn similarly sized vessels into Monitors. Are there any Army or Navy vets who concur? RIP E.D. Case [SF] James Lee [Rangers]

@createdeccentricities6620 Ай бұрын

Systems like this are lightyears beyond having soldiers manually load the tube, in the open.

@HanSolo__ Ай бұрын

I love this system but there are good reasons manual loading is a legit choice.

@tomeng9520 Ай бұрын

@@HanSolo__ A drone with an explosive load knocks out three people on a mobile mortar. With Patria you survive such an attack.

@jaripukki267 Ай бұрын

Germans are adopting same mortar system, as it seems US-Marines is too

@herptek Ай бұрын

Perhaps Finland should also.

@tomeng9520 Ай бұрын

@@herptek You play stupid?! Patria is a Finish company / developed from Finland.

@Thwarptide Ай бұрын

I know they’re not toys, but I still want one.

@krisray779 Ай бұрын

Looks like a Great scout vehicle.

@hotlanta35 Ай бұрын

Mortars have entered the chat room

@benktlofgren4710 13 күн бұрын

As a biased Swede as I see it there are only two options CV90 Mjölnir if you already have a CV90 fleet, or Going Patria/Nemo and slap it on a current system you build yourself. With that said Patria/Nemo is a better system but also very much more expensive. The Dutch went with Mjölnir and no surprise they have a CV90 fleet, i can see Germans slapping this on the new is it Lynx or Puma? Wouldn't be surprised that the Britts get this on their AJAX when they get it to work properly.

@RichardSouthside-p6s Ай бұрын

Ahh I know that range well, hello again Red Cloud

@Laakona Ай бұрын

Who writes this stuff? It is a "Mortar" system, not a "Mortal" system. Try proofreading your stuff before posting.

@rungfang27 Ай бұрын

Well maybe it is meant to destroy mortals!

@Astrothunderkat Ай бұрын

these AI channels all suck

@akamalov Ай бұрын

Title should be corrected From: "Mortal" to "Mortar"

@sachmo0196 Ай бұрын

Bradley w/M desig. No more/less. Or...a less qualified tank! Same sh*t outta open top Brads.

@ryanhamilton6445 Ай бұрын

So they finally developed something that wasn’t 10x over budget or what

@MilitaryPlayer141 Ай бұрын

That FCS looks strange, hopefully it does well for warfare

@supersasquatch Ай бұрын

better than the one in foxhole for sure

@joshhoep9777 Ай бұрын

Its a system developed from Finnland

@tmseh Ай бұрын

This will be sooooooo cool in War Thunder.

@DrlftySwlfty Ай бұрын

Looks like an old cold war vehicle 😂😂😂

@elmerdelgado5835 Ай бұрын

😍😍😍😍😍😍

@kentstansberry9748 Ай бұрын

Did they test the twin-tube system as well?

@josephahner3031 Ай бұрын

AMOS is no longer in production, so they'd have to restart it, no need though since NEMO has MRSI capability as well.

@nathanielwhite8769 Ай бұрын

The Patria NEMO Mortar System, if it’s Capable, Advanced; Delivers high rates of fire; is tried and tested and Modular, then Westminster won’t procure it for the British Army. They will insist on an overpriced, capability compromised solution that will be obsolete by its IOC date, that takes two decades or more to design, pontificate and procure. But most importantly provides jobs in party constituencies, thus those all important votes and post post-politics board positions and share holdings in the relevant defence firms!

@Bald_Zeus Ай бұрын

Still pissed my country Sweden dropped out of the AMOS/NEMO program...

@MostHigh777 Ай бұрын

So why are you intermittently showing pictures of an Abrams tank firing a machine gun?

@ViceCoin Ай бұрын

Vulnerable yo drones, mines, and mud.

@rogerthat4545 Ай бұрын

No more so than any other vehicle. But I suspect by the next time we see a battlefield drones won't be an issue

@matteusvirtanen392 Ай бұрын

Literally all vehicle are vulnerable to mud, if your artillery is driving over mines something went horribly wrong to begin with and it's not like you can afford to not have mortars and other indirect fires just because drones exist. At the moment just about every vehicle you can name is vulnerable to drones but if you just ditched all vehicles you have you can't really attack anymore.

@eugeneminton2613 Ай бұрын

so a mortar is already a tube launch system. but now the tube is on a turret with better targeting and such... and a different firing system. so it can be fired at different angles (lower ones than a normal mortar that is fired when it hits the pin at the bottom of tube. i assume electronic with maybe a magnetic hold on the tube its loaded in... assuming the mortar is put into a tube like a bazooka round... and that tube is loaded into the breach instead of just the mortar? or maybe the mortar is enough metal to be held in the breach tube? idk... interesting either way. cool.

@acmelka Ай бұрын

I wonder why they didn't put it on a multi wheeled cassie for the weight and maintenance savings. Patria sells 6 and 8 wheeled APCs. Sometimes I don't think the US Army realizes what a peer to peer conflict with an industrial manufacturing superpower will look like. We don't want to be like the Germans in late WW2 cranking out a few super advanced high tech weapons like the Tiger when the allies cranked out hundreds of thousands of good enough shermans and T34s. Wait... Ok Stryker s were mentioned...but not shown sporting the Patria turret...

@ericepperson8409 Ай бұрын

It's the same chassis as the Bradley. That's become the go to tracked platform for the US military since phasing out the M113. But it's pretty much a guarantee that it can fit on a Stryker as well.

@dominic6634 Ай бұрын

nemo been around awhile

@br2266 Ай бұрын

See, this is why weapons systems are not displayed, because even though the enemy is stupid, they can identify something simple like this and make their own rip off… it’s so simple, a kid could make it.

@matteusvirtanen392 Ай бұрын

Like 90% of what makes modern systems like this special comes from the electronics related to the fire control system and linking everything from drones to ballistic computers together with C2 and so on. If we are speaking purely mechanically there's nothing that special about the concept about a self propelled mortar but what's harder to make is stabilization good enough to shoot accurately while moving, ability to mount it from everything from a Bradley chassis to a boat and accurate MRSI calculactions. It's pretty hard to copy the electronics and programming and so on from seeing something from the outside for a bit.

@chuckhighlights5544 Ай бұрын

I didn’t know M1 can launch motor rounds to. Wow video is showing it ain’t it

@adriangunn Ай бұрын

Effective. Proven. Off the Shelf. Cost Effective. Positive Evaluation by US Soldiers. Result? Will never be adopted and fielded. Instead a new system will be developed in the US, with a long complex, and messy development, bid and contract process, that 10 years from now, after massive cost overruns, will be abandoned. Meanwhile US forces will be using the same mortar systems from a decade ago.

@ardivlore6136 Ай бұрын

Sistemi finlandez.

@JarnoA-R-g9z 27 күн бұрын

2006 Amos patria

@sundragon7703 Ай бұрын

Is the Patria NEMO redundant? Despite it being a cool vehicle that does interesting things. It seems to do similar tasks done by IFVs, but delivers indirect fire so it hangs behind the IFVs and the MBTs. Since "shoot & scoot" artillery is available, is the NEMO necessary?

@rungfang27 Ай бұрын

Yes,mortars are organic to the combat arms bn, ex Infantry, armor, cav. Artillery is a Brigade/Div asset and may not be available. Were as the bn cmdr can just call his mortars and get quick,accurate fire support.

@paxundpeace9970 Ай бұрын

No it is light mobile and can fire much further then any tank or IFV. It is a mobil artillery systme.

@ericepperson8409 Ай бұрын

It's about using the right tool for the job. A M1A1 is about killing other Tanks and Armored Vehicles. The new M10 'not a tank' Booker uses cheaper 105mm ammo for hard targets to provide direct fire support for Infantry. IFV's provide protected mobility and enough firepower to engage other IFV/APC's or provide suppressing fire for Infantry to advance. SPH's provide long range indirect fire capability for Defense or Offensive Operations. Ukraine still proves the value of towed Artillery. It's possible for a squad of Howitzers to set up and fire 4-5 rounds each, get hooked up, and scoot before counter battery arrives. Traditionally Mortars filled a short range gap for indirect suppressing fire against infantry. But the process to set one up involved a fair amount of work to make sure it was secure before firing for effect. This system can keep up with modern mounted Infantry while providing cost effective operations against targets like Machine Gun emplacements, light structures, or even thin skinned vehicles. By the way one of the coolest uses of 'towed' artillery was devised by the US Airborne. They will conduct an Artillery raid by slinging their guns under a helicopter, flying close to or even into opposing territory, delivering a fire mission and then slinging the guns again to return home. Or deploy in another spot for another fire mission. Can't exactly do that with a IFV.

@BravoCheesecake Ай бұрын

Again another example of the US Army refusing to work with NATO partners. The CV family of vehicles does this already and has a stable production line. WTF is our problem?

@RabbitxRabbit Ай бұрын

“Mortal?” Or Mortar?

@paxundpeace9970 Ай бұрын

Mortar

@HanSolo__ Ай бұрын

Yes.

@militaryleak-com Ай бұрын

Nemo = New Mortar ...

@juricarmichael2534 Ай бұрын

M113 on steroids?

@rogerthat4545 Ай бұрын

😆 no, they made a 113 with a tactical nuke on a missile with a 75 Mi range.. Don't know how much more pumped up with steroids you can get than that

@williamtheconqueror2719 Ай бұрын

I think it is the Bradley chassis and that will replace the M113, which is ironic, since the Bradley was originally going to be built using the M113 chassis.

@rogerthat4545 Ай бұрын

@@williamtheconqueror2719 who told you that??

@AustinFarrara Ай бұрын

They didnt adopt this system

@bradleyanderson4315 Ай бұрын

Isn’t this more economical than the M10 Booker?

@lorenzozampighi3646 Ай бұрын

Pretty much everything is more economical.

@paxundpeace9970 Ай бұрын

One is a light tank and this is an artillery piece.

@brianroberson902 Ай бұрын

Booker is a light tank,Nemo is a mortar system.

@josephahner3031 Ай бұрын

The M10 Booker is a direct fire system meant to support light infantry in contact with the enemy. The NEMO is an indirect fire system, mounted on the AMPV chassis this will replace the M1064 120mm mortar carrier in armored brigades. The two weapons serve completely different roles, while the NEMO can fire directly at targets in their line of sight they aren't meant to and the AMPV is not as well protected nor does the NEMO turret possess the same sensory capabilities as the Booker.

@janwitek4817 Ай бұрын

Rak 120 is combat tested system . US should evaluated it.

@HanSolo__ Ай бұрын

It's obsolete. It's a low-cost maintenance and manufacturing option. Nothing remotely close to Nemo. It's fine for Poland but I said year+ ago to adopt and licence produce Nemo.

@janwitek4817 Ай бұрын

What a BS . Rak is completely new system with state of the art fire control system and BMS . Turret is completely remote and could be even operated from outside the vehicle.

@efz629 Ай бұрын

RAK uses old Lada 1200L parts.

@janwitek4817 Ай бұрын

@@efz629 If stupity had wings.

@efz629 Ай бұрын

@@janwitek4817 "stupity"?

@briancooper2112 Ай бұрын

Looks like a modified M113

@gurkagurkadurka6688 Ай бұрын

Looks more like a modified M2 to me.

@christasker2944 Ай бұрын

@@gurkagurkadurka6688that because it is

@brianphillips7696 Ай бұрын

There actually is a modified 113 with a turntable in the rear compartment that had a heavy mortar on it. They had them in the 1/7 of the 1st cav div back in the 90’s

@brianphillips7696 Ай бұрын

Btw that does look like a Bradley hull to me. Not a 113

@jaripukki267 Ай бұрын

It's the new apc, which is basically Bradley without turret

@kytom89 Ай бұрын

Drones are just going to wipe all these systems out. Get busy building and operating FPV drones US Military. And develop anti drone tech ASAP.

@everypitchcounts4875 Ай бұрын

That's why US military has a drone warfare school

@ericepperson8409 Ай бұрын

One of the US Military's highest priorities is anti-drone systems. But it probably won't look like most people think. The biggest component will be Electronic to intercept and scramble drone signals. Also precise location to target for a bit of Artillery on the operator. The video mentions MRSI (Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact) capability. It only takes one platform to drop 4-5 rounds on a target at the same time. Life expectancy of a lot of FPV drones in the next fight with the US will be measured in minutes.