"M113s" Topic

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?

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.

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.

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 ?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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 …

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.

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.

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.

Sounds like fun !

Excellent.

Thanks for all the info.

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