Help support TMP


"M113s" Topic


16 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Vietnam War Message Board



579 hits since 10 Oct 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

uglyfatbloke11 Oct 2018 11:37 a.m. PST

My better half uses Corgi vehicles for our Vietnam games (guess who got the bad guys) and has acquired 2 M113 mortar carriers. I had assumed that these should be part of a mortar platoon rather than operating beside the troops carriers, but I was told recently it was a fairly common practice for them to be deployed along side them…is that correct? It seems unlikely to me if only because surely the minimum range would be considerably more than would be useful at such close quarters…any thoughts? OTH I have read of the 4.2 mortar being replaced with a 81mm which would have a a shorter minimum range…any thoughts?

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP11 Oct 2018 11:59 a.m. PST

IIRC, 81mm mortars were more direct attachment, and the 4.2" ones were in general support.

Mortar minimum ranges, especially for the 81mms, can be quite short.

Personal logo Stosstruppen Supporting Member of TMP11 Oct 2018 12:21 p.m. PST

I was in a light infantry battalion in the early 80s. 81s were part of the company weapons platoon. Four deuce at that time was part of the battalion support company.

Legion 411 Oct 2018 12:54 p.m. PST

Yes, I was in 3 Mech Bns '84-'90 and Stosstruppen is basically correct.

When I was a PL in the 101, '80-'83, the Rifle Co. had an 81 Plt. This was the same with Mech Bns, until the TOE change @ '85. And the 81s were removed from the Cos' TOE. But the 4.2s stayed as a Bn asset.

part of a mortar platoon rather than operating beside the troops carriers, but I was told recently it was a fairly common practice for them to be deployed along side them…is that correct?
AFAIK that was never done when I was on active duty, '79-'90.

The M125 81mm Mortar Plt would move to support the advance of the Co. However the Co. moving in a column along a road or trail they may have been in the formation. Of course in many cases you don't want to travel along a road or trail. But as always it is based on terrain and situation.

Now saying all that, that does not mean a Co Cdr would/could not have his M125s operate along side the M113s/Grunts in the unit. It is not a tactic/technique I would recommend or even use. But that Cdr may of had his reasons ? What those were … I don't know ?

uglyfatbloke11 Oct 2018 2:46 p.m. PST

So…a platoon of 81mm mortars in 113s in (relatively) close support of of a mech infantry company would not be unreasonable but the 4.2s would be a battalion/regimental asset?

RudyNelson11 Oct 2018 4:48 p.m. PST

The M113 version for the 4.2" M106 is different than the M113 used for 81mm.

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP11 Oct 2018 5:42 p.m. PST

Cav units had them, and were sometimes attached individually to a platoon of tanks and a few tracks.

Can't recall if those were 81mms, or 4.2" mortars though.

RudyNelson11 Oct 2018 6:30 p.m. PST

Post Vietnam Cavalry, I was in the cavalry of the First Cav Division.
During Vietnam, 1CD was Airmbile with most of the mortars being 81mm
H-TOE called for Cavalry scout Squadrons to have 4.2"
Tank battalions also had them. Infantry Bns had 81mm.

uglyfatbloke12 Oct 2018 4:03 a.m. PST

So for gaming purposes she can attach each of them to troops of tanks. For infantry units would it be rational to have the pair of them as a support unit? She needs a good excuse to get them into action…they are far too cool to just sit on a shelf…and we do have a fairly big table.

Legion 412 Oct 2018 6:36 a.m. PST

So…a platoon of 81mm mortars in 113s in (relatively) close support of a mech infantry company would not be unreasonable but the 4.2s would be a battalion/regimental asset?
Yes, that is the way it worked.

M125 81s were an organic Company asset[until about '85].
3 M125 with 1 M113 FDC … IIRC …

M106 4.2s were a Bn asset. The Bn Cdr's "hip pocket artillery ". 3 M106s with 1 M577 FDC … IIRC … old fart

uglyfatbloke12 Oct 2018 6:48 a.m. PST

Cheers…so her (understrength) Mech coy with 2 platoons in 6 113s and a pair of M125s looks like the way to go – at least until she picks up more M113s.

Legion 412 Oct 2018 8:20 a.m. PST

Yes, that would work. Remember rarely a unit is 100% … E.g. My M113 Mech Co of 14 authorized at times only fielded 10 or less. Breakdowns, cross attaching, etc., etc.

uglyfatbloke12 Oct 2018 9:21 a.m. PST

Always the case really – I'm not going to be encouraging her to bring it up to strength; not unless I build a second company of PAVN or maybe some VC. I'm pretty seriously outgunned as it is.

Legion 412 Oct 2018 12:54 p.m. PST

Sounds like fun !

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP12 Oct 2018 3:54 p.m. PST

Excellent.

Thanks for all the info.

uglyfatbloke13 Oct 2018 7:35 a.m. PST

X2 for Thresher – I'm obliged to you all.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.