Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Not disagreeing with you but “light infantry” is boot mobile and “mechanised infantry” is APC borne. We don’t have enough APCs (even if they were all at home) for 1 full mechanised Inf Bn
We do have doctrine for both.
If we have spare money it has to be spend on more APCs.
What would I do with Arty?
Upgrade the 105s to the U.K. equivalent standard and 120mm to reduce the into action and out of action time
They could be towed by an armoured vehicle.
Boot mobile went out 75 years ago, even the BEF was fully motorised, no modern force is boot mobile. We need to get away from number of boots, if we only want to spend 0.3% on defence then better to reduce numbers and give them the equipment & remuneration that they need.
Light infantry today is helicopter mobile (including their vehicles)
Heavy infantry is mechanised mobile.
Not disagreeing with you but “light infantry” is boot mobile and “mechanised infantry” is APC borne. We don’t have enough APCs (even if they were all at home) for 1 full mechanised Inf Bn
My understanding is that
"light" is boot borne
"motorised" is APC borne
"mechanised" is IFV borne
And for arty I would say AMOS or NEMO on 8 wheeler. Has direct fire ability.
Boot mobile went out 75 years ago, even the BEF was fully motorised, no modern force is boot mobile. We need to get away from number of boots, if we only want to spend 0.3% on defence then better to reduce numbers and give them the equipment & remuneration that they need.
Light infantry today is helicopter mobile (including their vehicles)
Heavy infantry is mechanised mobile.
I'm attached to a British Army Light Infantry Battalion at present.
Light Infantry rarely train with helicopters...thats not their role.
They are transported to short of the FUP by lorry.
They then move to the FUP and on to the start line on foot prior to the assault.
Air Assault Infantry are transported by helicopters; at present in the British Army 1RGR are fulfilling that role with 16 Air Assault Bde, with 2&3 PARA training for it also.
A whole different skillset.
Light Protected Mobility Infantry Bns are equipped with Foxhound.
Heavy Protected Mobility Infantry Bns with Mastiff.
Armoured Infantry Bns with Warrior.
The US Army use a similar construct; their light infantry are transported forward in 'B' Vehicles also, not helicopters.
They run a specialist Air Assault School at Fort Campbell, Kentucky...for their Air Assault Infantry...and award a badge for it.
1 RIRISH sent a Company over to do the course about 10 years ago, when they were in the 16X Air Assault role.
They broke all the schools records, but the Commandant wouldn't allow their record to stand as they were from a foreign army.
I'm reliably told they would have done even better on the initial beat-up phase, but they'd been partying the night before...
Light Infantry soldiering and Air Assault (or heliborne) soldiering are very different.
'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins
I know, perhaps the plan is to use Taxis to transport troops in an Emergency!! And we must not forget we even have trouble issuing more than one pair of boots.
I have to say, I'm at something of a loss to wonder what purpose the 105 has in the DF. Today the only reason for a gun of that calibre tends to be for air mobility, hanging it under a small helicopter or chucking out of an airplane. It's worth noting that the Aussies replaced their 105mm light guns with the M777 155mm howitzer, a 4-ton gun vs the 105mm 2-ton. (The previous towed 155mm was a 7-ton gun). The M777 can be carried by most of the Australian army's helicopters, so it's reasonable for them. The Americans have shown what is possible to upgrade the 105 to with modern fire control and navigation, if you really do feel like keeping the gun (and dropping it with a parachute)
But realistically, where is the Irish Army going to be airlifting towed artillery with its AW139s on operations? If they're driving around Chad or somewhere and they want to have a bit of fire support emplaced before going into a town or valley, the 120mm mortars ought to be plenty handy enough. If they're in Lebanon, with a much smaller operating range, the towed 155s on a firebase would be fine (Worked for us in Afghanistan). If they want to take the artillery on long range operation anyway, then they're towing it and the weight is irrelevant. And if it's a matter of WW3 and conventional combat, then the ability to displace rapidly to avoid counter-battery becomes critical, making towed units very vulnerable.
However. If the purpose of the Artillery Corps in the DF today is simply training in processes/procedures with no expectation of combat use, then the current 105s are fine and don't need replacing until the barrel falls off.
This is my main reason for the suggestion that SPG is required. Every overseas mission with the exception of UNIFIL and East Timor recently has involved significant amounts of armoured patrolling and some multi day patrols. Arty should be able to accompany these types of patrols and provide over watch for the entire duration of a patrol or mission as well as having the same level of mobility and armour protection. Soft skinned towing trucks don't provide that. Otherwise we are either going without over-watch or limited to fire base range radius for patrolling. Either not reasonable options in my mind.
Mortars are organic to a mechanised infantry company's structure, the only guaranteed indirect fire resource.
Due to the small number of Mowags, a mech inf coy is going to the largest size armoured formation that would be on a patrol, but more likely platoons or in pairs.
If needs must, a 120mm, 81mm or 60mm mortar detachment, with ammo can be transported in a Mowag, dismounting to go into action.
A dedicated armoured SPG/mortar carrier would become a garage queen unless it can be stripped out and used as an APC when not needed for carrying mortars.
Mortars are organic to a mechanised infantry company's structure, the only guaranteed indirect fire resource.
Due to the small number of Mowags, a mech inf coy is going to the largest size armoured formation that would be on a patrol, but more likely platoons or in pairs.
If needs must, a 120mm, 81mm or 60mm mortar detachment, with ammo can be transported in a Mowag, dismounting to go into action.
A dedicated armoured SPG/mortar carrier would become a garage queen unless it can be stripped out and used as an APC when not needed for carrying mortars.
Just putting these out there....although as a Vamtac fan I wouldn't mind us getting it in half a dozen variants...
I have to say, I'm at something of a loss to wonder what purpose the 105 has in the DF. Today the only reason for a gun of that calibre tends to be for air mobility, hanging it under a small helicopter or chucking out of an airplane. It's worth noting that the Aussies replaced their 105mm light guns with the M777 155mm howitzer, a 4-ton gun vs the 105mm 2-ton. (The previous towed 155mm was a 7-ton gun). The M777 can be carried by most of the Australian army's helicopters, so it's reasonable for them. The Americans have shown what is possible to upgrade the 105 to with modern fire control and navigation, if you really do feel like keeping the gun (and dropping it with a parachute)
But realistically, where is the Irish Army going to be airlifting towed artillery with its AW139s on operations? If they're driving around Chad or somewhere and they want to have a bit of fire support emplaced before going into a town or valley, the 120mm mortars ought to be plenty handy enough. If they're in Lebanon, with a much smaller operating range, the towed 155s on a firebase would be fine (Worked for us in Afghanistan). If they want to take the artillery on long range operation anyway, then they're towing it and the weight is irrelevant. And if it's a matter of WW3 and conventional combat, then the ability to displace rapidly to avoid counter-battery becomes critical, making towed units very vulnerable.
However. If the purpose of the Artillery Corps in the DF today is simply training in processes/procedures with no expectation of combat use, then the current 105s are fine and don't need replacing until the barrel falls off.
I think you have hit the nail on the head; it is training with no expectation of combat use. If we were too deploy the 105 in a EUBG, we would likely be the only ones with the 105mm pattern, as the majority use 155mm. Maybe if the US Army adopts the AM General Brutus there could be a few M-777's going cheap. But then again if they arenot going to be deployed why bother?
What a lot seem to forget is that places like Chad or Mali are vast, both of them cover areas 3 times the size of Sweden. Mali alone is double the size of Afghanistan so patrol areas are also vast, hence the need for mobile fire power.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment