Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defence Forces Artillery

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DeV View Post
    Can the door?

    Could it therefore pull a 120?
    You're not going to let go of towing artillary, are you??

    Maybe we should multi-task the horsey school to help out!!
    An army is power. Its entire purpose is to coerce others. This power can not be used carelessly or recklessly. This power can do great harm. We have seen more suffering than any man should ever see, and if there is going to be an end to it, it must be an end that justifies the cost. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

    Comment


    • Originally posted by X-RayOne View Post
      You're not going to let go of towing artillary, are you??

      Maybe we should multi-task the horsey school to help out!!
      Only if we bring limbers back too!
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • Towed artillery is still very viable, even in this day and age. Some of the schemes put forward are bordering on the bizarre or ill thought out. All of those wheeled truck based mobile guns still need support vehicles,just to keep them fed with rounds and they are getting more and more complex. A simple 105 or 120mm mortar can be kept in the field and operated by a fairly simple support system. I wouldnt rule them out yet.

        Comment


        • I'm not ruling out towed artillery, however, I am saying we need to modernise the corps ability and efficiency in combined arms manoeuvring. Perhaps a sub unit of artillery should be mechanised specifically for close infantry support. Doable as air defence which is a different animal altogether is already folded into the corps mix.

          If nothing is done and the status quo remains we run the risk of making the corps obsolete. Plenty of others have already highlighted the lack of range of 105mm compared to what appears to be the new base standard of 155mm; the lack of high precision munitions and upgrades to current gun stock compared to other users, the lack of fire support over long mobile patrols and the vulnerability to counter fire while deploying and breaking down guns.
          An army is power. Its entire purpose is to coerce others. This power can not be used carelessly or recklessly. This power can do great harm. We have seen more suffering than any man should ever see, and if there is going to be an end to it, it must be an end that justifies the cost. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

          Comment


          • Originally posted by X-RayOne View Post
            I'm not ruling out towed artillery, however, I am saying we need to modernise the corps ability and efficiency in combined arms manoeuvring. Perhaps a sub unit of artillery should be mechanised specifically for close infantry support. Doable as air defence which is a different animal altogether is already folded into the corps mix.

            If nothing is done and the status quo remains we run the risk of making the corps obsolete. Plenty of others have already highlighted the lack of range of 105mm compared to what appears to be the new base standard of 155mm; the lack of high precision munitions and upgrades to current gun stock compared to other users, the lack of fire support over long mobile patrols and the vulnerability to counter fire while deploying and breaking down guns.
            The lowest level combined arms manoeuvre warfare can be conducted is a Bn Gp (really it is Bde level), for that we would need at least 1 fully APC mounted Mech Inf Bn (which we don’t have enough for).

            We could effectively, cheaply and cost effectively upgrade the 105s


            120mm is a very effective and mobile weapon with a similar killing & danger area (double that of the 105) to the 155mm. It doesn’t however have its range but it is very mobile. We could work on upgrades of them
            Last edited by DeV; 30 October 2020, 11:24.

            Comment


            • I thought the current type of guided 120mm mortar rounds makes them even more viable. Less rounds spent on getting first hits and less rounds spent on destruction of a target.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                I thought the current type of guided 120mm mortar rounds makes them even more viable. Less rounds spent on getting first hits and less rounds spent on destruction of a target.
                Most guided rounds use GPS so an electronic fire control system is required to program the round.
                There also are laser guided round like Iron Sling from Israel and of course the famous but expensive Strix round from Sweden.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                  Most guided rounds use GPS so an electronic fire control system is required to program the round.
                  There also are laser guided round like Iron Sling from Israel and of course the famous but expensive Strix round from Sweden.
                  Depending on GPS guided weapons is commented on in RUSI papers. "UK's Multiple Launch Rocket system is issued with a GPS-Guided rocket with an unitary warhead, which is inaccurate in the face of extensive Russian jamming, consequently is unable to course correct to deal with dynamic targets. The key factor is to establish are you outgunned and outranged by likely opposing forces and take steps to correct it by upping your capability in anti-armour and area effect ammunitions to disrupt infantry maybe even cluster munitions should be considered. RUSI points out that 16 Air assault Brigade and 3rd Commando Brigade have only 2 BATTY x 6 x105's each and is under gunned.
                  The recommended fires capability for the BA- Batty of antitank GM's per battle group, Batty of SP x120mm mortars per battle group, 72 x 155mm (52 Calibre) SP Howitzers with anti-armour , area effect ammunitions; and a regiment of multi-launch rocket systems with anti-armour and area effect munitions, with precision long-range fires. In that regard it should match opposing fire of 120km.
                  At a tactical level there is a need for most units to be self propelled to cut down large logistical tails. Even the 105's should be mounted on a suitable vehicle or replaced with an SP unit such as 120mm mortars. In our case maybe our list should include ATk GM Missiles, SP x 120mm mortars, and 6 x 155mm SP Howiters, with relevant fires and munitions.

                  Comment


                  • which is why the Russians are perfectly capable of "ordinary" unguided mortar/rocket/shell fire saturation as well as PGMs. They maintain the old school 122 and 152mm guns and the basic BM 21 type rocket for flattening a grid square, as well as the ability to drop one round into one small trench, as they need it. The UK has drifted away from the old school and is essentially casting about for a solution, while eyeing the current drone warfare in NK nervously. Apart from that, they have showed extreme reluctance to buy into the 120mm mortar yet will happily update the smaller calibres at unit level.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                      which is why the Russians are perfectly capable of "ordinary" unguided mortar/rocket/shell fire saturation as well as PGMs. They maintain the old school 122 and 152mm guns and the basic BM 21 type rocket for flattening a grid square, as well as the ability to drop one round into one small trench, as they need it. The UK has drifted away from the old school and is essentially casting about for a solution, while eyeing the current drone warfare in NK nervously. Apart from that, they have showed extreme reluctance to buy into the 120mm mortar yet will happily update the smaller calibres at unit level.
                      I think since the 1970/1980's the RU's have moved very much towards SP units. The 155mm's are fitted into armoured SP units and can also be in a towed version. The newer 152mm is self propelled designed to disrupt deep behind their en's front lines. They can have as many as 80 Arty pieces supporting field units. In order to minimise movement logistics the need is dynamics and self-propulsion. It prevents getting trenched and overrun.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                        I think since the 1970/1980's the RU's have moved very much towards SP units. The 155mm's are fitted into armoured SP units and can also be in a towed version. The newer 152mm is self propelled designed to disrupt deep behind their en's front lines. They can have as many as 80 Arty pieces supporting field units. In order to minimise movement logistics the need is dynamics and self-propulsion. It prevents getting trenched and overrun.
                        Attached to each Motor Rifle Battalion is a 120mm SP mortar battery, at the higher level then comes the 122mm& 152mm SPG's as well as all their differ mobile MLRS's. They do maintain a large stock of towed pieces but these are more for reserve units and for the "little green men" to play with.

                        Comment


                        • Let's assume that the Army does intend to one day deploy and use it's artillery forces rather than just have them to practice procedures.

                          As anyone who has ever towed anything will know, towing reduces not only speed but mobility. This is the same for towed artillery compared with self propelled, the latter will always have the advantage.

                          Next is the issue of fire bases, yes they have their place and do provide troops with good support and here SP has no advantage as the elements are dug-in. But they are limited by there range, so to effectively give troops in the field cover they have to be plentiful. This is possible in an operational area like the south of Lebanon but not so when you get to north Africa or the Sahal region. In Mali the French have two main bases one at Goa and the other at Tessalit, the distance between them is about 500km! Trying to cover that distance with a 105mm just is not going to work. And the French knew this and so deployed their Caesar 155mm systems for combat operation.

                          So today a lot of systems are non-protected, this is great for light forces such as airmobile troops but is it OK for a peer-on-peer confrontation. In many of the recent conflicts the opposition had little or no way of firing back at an artillery position. So there was little need for crew protection, but history repeats itself and once again the issue of crew protection is back. The US Army is currently trialing the Patria NEMO system for their Strykers as the current M1129 Mortar Carrier exposes the crew when firing.

                          If we do want to have a modern artillery battery, howitzer or mortar it should be self propelled and protected if possible.

                          Comment


                          • Every Russian gunner starts off on the 122mm gun or the 81mm mortar as the basic weapon and they won't be giving up those calibres any time soon. They have had the 122mm Gvozdika in service for decades, when NATO armies were shunning SPGs in smaller calibres, because that calibre fires a very efficient shot and the bigger 152mm is even deadlier. As for the French in Mali, 500 km between bases suggests to me that they need to build another base halfway. I thoroughly agree about mobile guns, be they tracked or wheeled, but I consider that a basic layer of integral towed guns and mortars are needed in any Army. They can be moved easily, by truck, helicopter, freight aircraft, ship or boat and can be easily maintained. In our context, the DF won't be allowed to get tracked guns so it will default to a Mowag-portable weapon or a truck type like Caesar.

                            Comment


                            • Why does the DF need arty?

                              Because you can’t have a “light infantry based all arms force” without it

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post

                                So today a lot of systems are non-protected, this is great for light forces such as airmobile troops but is it OK for a peer-on-peer confrontation. In many of the recent conflicts the opposition had little or no way of firing back at an artillery position. So there was little need for crew protection, but history repeats itself and once again the issue of crew protection is back. The US Army is currently trialing the Patria NEMO system for their Strykers as the current M1129 Mortar Carrier exposes the crew when firing.

                                If we do want to have a modern artillery battery, howitzer or mortar it should be self propelled and protected if possible.
                                The Finnish Patria Nemo seems versatile and able to provide stabilised fire on the move. They also fit it on patrol naval craft. Updating systems is to be encouraged to cut down on towed dependency and increase mobility.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X