In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
This was not a technical failure, but the realisation that an 81mm bomb
didn't have the lethality needed, while scaling up to 120mm was a major
retooling and a large logistic overhead.

I suspect a revised view of the nature of the threat likely has something to
do with that decision.

An infantry battalion is never going to complain about more anti-tank
(or anti-other AFV) assets. You've not got _that_ many MILAN (posts nor
missiles) and LAW is short-ranged and demanding of the firer (an oppo
shot off four LIFEX LAW90: he went in thinking 'this should be fun!' and
came out looking and feeling ill for days) so more assets and more range
in the battalion anti-armour plan would be nice. T-55s aren't scary to a
treadhead, but well-handled they can worry infantry quite a bit.

But, Merlin firstly lacked the lethality, and secondly distracted the
mortar platoon from their main job of firing HE, smoke and illum
missions. It was followed post-Options for Change, so the changed threat
wasn't the main axe (though I would hesitate to deny that added to the
stroke)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk