Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defence Forces Artillery

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



  • Army Guide - information about the main battle tanks, armoured vehicles and armament of the land forces and also the information concerning other army subjects - L118, Towed gun, Weapons & Weapon Systems

    Comment


    • Originally posted by X-RayOne View Post
      They did, however, have no shortage of CAS or cav to support them. Which compensated for lack of arty.

      Overseas, we never have CAS and limited cav, in terms of firepower on the vehicles.

      So an alternative is bring arty for fire suport. But again it is limited by range of the weapon systems we have and more pointedly, by the fact that we are not mobile enough with arty.

      I've said this many times before, our inf and cav are so much more mobile now than years before and capable of operating for extended periods away from a PB. Arty are still effectively using horse drawn guns in comparision.

      We have enough guns for the establishment but imo we need to look more at mounted systems to keep pace with the rest of the fighting formations (especially as medium lift helis are way off)!
      They also served as part of an international coalition with rules of engagement, and many ROE especially those with the un specify limitations on the types of weapons that can be employed limiting many missions to small arms only. People are forgetting that the DF frequently opertate overseas with severe limitations on the types of weapons they deploy, hence 90mm RCl instead of milan in 1980’s Lebanon.

      The defence forces are quite small, and as a result so are the expeditionary forces they can deploy. Canada is a G 7 nation with a population 8 times ours with three times as many soldiers and they found it difficult to maintain a battalion sized battlegroup in Afghanistan, hence why there is so much effort in interational ops and joint operations in western armies it’s the realisation that to have an expeditionary armed forces is expensive and beyond the capabilities of many countries. And the role that joint ops play in DF thinking ovber the past ten years has transformed the force.

      The 105mm capability fits in quite well there, its got plenty of future growth. When the brits and French wanted to break the siege of Sarajevo in 1995 they used 105/120mm mix. the brits and americans boh plan to keep it in service, its air portable, can be towed by armoured vehicles, and adds an asset to joint operations in EUBG with Germany or the Nordics that they don/t have. Put it through a digital upgrade and keep in in service as long as the world powers do.

      Comment


      • KMW have done a small re-vamp of their 155mm AGM, could this be the first move to respond to the marketing efforts of BAe Systems with their Archer?
        As shown the AGM is mounted on an Iveco Trakker but it can be fitted to any 8x8 truck. As the rest of the artillery world moves to 155mm how long will 105mm be viable as our only long range asset.

        https://www.kmweg.com/systems-produc...agm-iveco-8x8/

        Comment


        • I've mentioned this many times before, arty need some form of self propelled gun to keep up with rest of combat and combat support arms if we are to ever have a truly integrated light infantry / combined arms force. I think that would be a major advance that could include increasing effective arty range through larger caliber.

          And before its said......the size of the Glen of Imaal shouldn't limit the various corps developing capability because the noise will wake the neighbors, range is too small ,etc. there are always ways and means around the historical limits.
          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've mentioned this many times before, arty need some form of self propelled gun to keep up with rest of combat and combat support arms if we are to ever have a truly integrated light infantry / combined arms force. I think that would be a major advance that could include increasing effective arty range through larger caliber.

            And before its said......the size of the Glen of Imaal shouldn't limit the various corps developing capability because the noise will wake the neighbors, range is too small ,etc. there are always ways and means around the historical limits.
            Re: your point on SPGs... as someone mentioned elsewhere, take out the vehicle and the gun ceases to be mobile. As against a vehicle towing an artillery piece, hitch to a different vehicle. Pros and cons to both approaches I guess
            "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

            Comment


            • when it comes to range size, nothing stopping any gunner from firing out to sea at a static or towed target. It has been done before,many times......as for taking heavy weapons abroad on a UN gig, I guess the French must have ignored that rule as they brought Leclerc tanks to UNIFIL and potential opponents knew full well that they'd have plenty of firepower floating out to sea just in case anyone got naughty. The Dutch also gave that alleged rule a stiff ignoring and managed to bring TOW missiles with them,which contributed to saving our mens' metaphorical bacon on at least one occasion.

              Comment


              • The main advantage that a GOAT system has is the time to shoot and scoot. A modern system will be able to stop, fire a few rounds and be on its way again before the traditional towed system is even ready to fire. And if it is a system such as the BAe Archer or KMW AGM the number of crew required is reduced dramatically due to automation.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                  when it comes to range size, nothing stopping any gunner from firing out to sea at a static or towed target. It has been done before,many times......as for taking heavy weapons abroad on a UN gig, I guess the French must have ignored that rule as they brought Leclerc tanks to UNIFIL and potential opponents knew full well that they'd have plenty of firepower floating out to sea just in case anyone got naughty. The Dutch also gave that alleged rule a stiff ignoring and managed to bring TOW missiles with them,which contributed to saving our mens' metaphorical bacon on at least one occasion.
                  The French also deployed the GCT-155 SPG as well (famously falling off a truck in UN markings), while the Italian have and continue to deploy their Centauro tank destroyers to UNIFIL.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
                    when it comes to range size, nothing stopping any gunner from firing out to sea at a static or towed target. It has been done before,many times......as for taking heavy weapons abroad on a UN gig, I guess the French must have ignored that rule as they brought Leclerc tanks to UNIFIL and potential opponents knew full well that they'd have plenty of firepower floating out to sea just in case anyone got naughty. The Dutch also gave that alleged rule a stiff ignoring and managed to bring TOW missiles with them,which contributed to saving our mens' metaphorical bacon on at least one occasion.
                    The French also deployed the GCT-155 SPG as well (famously falling off a truck in UN markings), while the Italian have and continue to deploy their Centauro tank destroyers to UNIFIL. And if I remember correctly the UN booklet on supply of aircraft also allows for attack helicopters in particular the Mi-24, or are they only for agricultural use?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by X-RayOne View Post
                      I've mentioned this many times before, arty need some form of self propelled gun to keep up with rest of combat and combat support arms if we are to ever have a truly integrated light infantry / combined arms force. I think that would be a major advance that could include increasing effective arty range through larger caliber.

                      And before its said......the size of the Glen of Imaal shouldn't limit the various corps developing capability because the noise will wake the neighbors, range is too small ,etc. there are always ways and means around the historical limits.
                      You don’t need SP arty to keep up with light infantry and we have enough APC lift for less than an Inf Bn

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                        You don’t need SP arty to keep up with light infantry and we have enough APC lift for less than an Inf Bn
                        When was the last active duty deployment as light infantry?
                        We do not have enough trucks to transport all our infantry troops, are they all going to march everywhere?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                          You don’t need SP arty to keep up with light infantry and we have enough APC lift for less than an Inf Bn
                          In a modern military context there are 3 main types of "light infantry",
                          (a) Airborne/Airmobile
                          (b) Mountain Troops (Chasseurs Alpins, Gebirgsjäger, Alpini)
                          (c) Marine/Commando

                          All are characterized by being light and highly mobile, that goes also for their artillery. This is why there is interest in the Hawkeye system which mounts a 105mm gun on a HUMVEE.

                          I would have no objection if the Army was a true "Light" infantry force like the USMC but then we would need to equip the 7 battalions: 210x PIII's, 441x JLTV's, 42x M777's, 28-42x AH-1Z's, 84x MV-22's, 28x CH-53E's, 42x AV-8B or F-35B's &14 x C-130J's etc.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                            The main advantage that a GOAT system has is the time to shoot and scoot. A modern system will be able to stop, fire a few rounds and be on its way again before the traditional towed system is even ready to fire. And if it is a system such as the BAe Archer or KMW AGM the number of crew required is reduced dramatically due to automation.
                            Dev,

                            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.

                            I've used the "light infantry" terminology in the loosest meaning. We have always based our doctrine around inf bns. We are only recently beginning to move to integrated, combined arms. However, we are never going to move towards heavy armoured regiments, etc. or any type of formations of the like. If we intend to have highly mobile, manouver formations based around inf bn or components then all the combat formation needs to be mobile and protected to same level and everybody supporting needs to be able to keep up!
                            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 EUFighter View Post
                              I would have no objection if the Army was a true "Light" infantry force like the USMC but then we would need to equip the 7 battalions: 210x PIII's, 441x JLTV's, 42x M777's, 28-42x AH-1Z's, 84x MV-22's, 28x CH-53E's, 42x AV-8B or F-35B's &14 x C-130J's etc.

                              Dear Santa, I have a been a very good boy this year....
                              What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by X-RayOne View Post
                                Dev,

                                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.

                                I've used the "light infantry" terminology in the loosest meaning. We have always based our doctrine around inf bns. We are only recently beginning to move to integrated, combined arms. However, we are never going to move towards heavy armoured regiments, etc. or any type of formations of the like. If we intend to have highly mobile, manouver formations based around inf bn or components then all the combat formation needs to be mobile and protected to same level and everybody supporting needs to be able to keep up!
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X