Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: crusader vs Options
derek.west1@us.army.mil    9/9/2002 12:21:45 AM
We need the crusader. Jets are too expensive and take to long to provide support. Cruise missiles-too expensive. helicopters-incapable of indirect fire. Battleships-work fine if the enemy is dumb enough to go near the coast. No other weapons in the military are as capable of providing support and mass fires like the paladins. however, there are many deficiencies to the paladin, only 2-3 rpm, no armor, too slow, and take too long to battle load. the crusader would not only increase the effectiveness of support 10 fold, but would also be capable of lauching offensives on their own. Imagine, instead of sending infantry, mechanized or otherwise, and planes into enemy territory, you use a rear element to accomplish the goal. with a range of over 40km and its speed, the crusader would be able to deliver those rounds from afar, then move before the enemy even has a clue as to where it came from. Think about it, with an entire crusader battalion (10+ guns) firing for just 3 minutes, you would be able to annihilate the enemy. each crusader is capable of at least 10 rounds per min, all at variable angles of fire. Thats 30 HE rounds per min, all landing within 2 sec of each other. with 10 guns you would be able to strike with 90 rounds in 3 minutes. that is about 6500lbs of TNT all hitting an enemy position within 3 minutes. it would be hell on earth for the enemy. then, even if someone survives and tries to figure out where it came from, the multiple trajectories would take more than enough time for the guns to move far, far away from their firing position. and by that time, the battalion could launch another offensive somewhere else. all for millions less than air raids, not to mention the amount of american lives not put in a situation where we could meet with casualties. why die for your country, let the enemy die for his. im not saying the crusader would be the main weapon of choice for offensives, but it could do it effectivly. Redlegs need to unite, and make the crusader a reality. hooshaa!
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
macawman    RE:crusader vs Options   9/9/2002 1:01:56 PM
The weapon system should match the game/war. In the small war scenerio the battalion organic 120 mm mortar fits the bill for full time arty support in the mountains of Afganistan. No one weapon system is appropriate for every terrain or situation. Flexible and taylored tactics and equipment is the smart way something the Special Ops soldiers practice well. The Crusader would be viable in a Desert Storm type operation since it has the same off road speed as the Abrams and Bradleys.
 
Quote    Reply

Pete S    RE:crusader vs Options   9/9/2002 9:22:59 PM
Derek; One problem I see with Crusader is that there is no way to work the gun manually. Also, what do you think about the "International Howitzer", which is a further evolution of the M-109/Paladin?
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    The Mission of MLRS artillery in Mobile Warfare   9/13/2002 11:16:58 PM
The arty mission while in movement to contact has not changed since the blitzkreg tactics of WWII. That arty mission has primarily been one of flank security while in column. The direct fire weapons ie. tanks, gunships take care of the close battle at the front. For artillery to become a larger player in open mobile warfare they need dedicated eyes forward (UAVs) looking at least 6 hours ahead of the attack column. The optimum artillery weapon for that role would be ATACMS with its 100 mile range and large area target coverage. The questions is the off roadability and speed of the MLRS as compared to the Abrams off road capability and speed. The primary mission of flank security while in movement to contact would go to the gunships. In static and/or enclosed areas heavy artillery is in its element. The Korean War, WW I, II, and Vietnam are prime examples of static heavy artillery contribution.
 
Quote    Reply

jimbeam    RE:crusader vs Options   11/1/2002 5:31:39 PM
You bet we need crusader. Here is one of my biggest concerns. So rum cancelled crusader. Who's are biggest future enemy? China. 10-20 years time. How long does it take to envision,produce and field a weapon like the crusader?10years maybe more. So,we may have no effective artillery to deal with the chinese hordes in the future. This worries me. We need the crusader.
 
Quote    Reply

norden    RE:crusader vs Options   11/1/2002 6:29:20 PM
The Crusader is almost ready to go and we scrap it. I think It should be an interim artillery system. The Paladin is an antique. I can imagine the the logistical problems with the crusader and resupply vehicle, but the crusader seems to deliver a huge improvement over any previous artillery systems. I also like the wheeled MLRS (its cheap) and the new vertical lauched rockets
 
Quote    Reply

Phoenix Rising    RE:crusader vs Options   11/2/2002 1:25:55 AM
Hmm ... I'm under the impression that the Paladin is still the cream of the crop of world artillery systems; if it isn't, what exactly is? Are the Russians or Chinese fielding anything better ... or even really close? There really hasn't been a conflict in a long time where the Crusader would have made a heckuva difference, and I think the all-out-war-with-China scenario is a little farfetched to be dropping such a huge amount of money on. Long-term planners have to deal with a balance of two things when planning for events: the severity of a potential crisis, and the likelihood of one. The severity of a war with China would be large, but the odds are small enough to essentially cancel it out. IMV, at least. YMMV. You say "we're going to need the Crusader against China" like 1) war with China is inevitable, and 2) the Crusader is the only things that can stop them. I don't particularly buy either of those. War with China may be more likely than most of us want to admit. I'm not blind. I'll give you that. However, that still doesn't make it incredibly likely. The second point is where I stand my ground. A conflict with China that escalated to the point where Crusaders would be called in would be at the verge of going nuclear. Several CVBG's would already be in the area, with all their attendant firepower. Set against the backdrop of the kind of scenario where we would actually call such a heavy, expensive, and powerful system into play, the Crusader wouldn't be likely to make that much of a difference. --Phoenix Rising
 
Quote    Reply

norden    RE:crusader vs Options to phoenix   11/3/2002 3:28:10 PM
the german PzH2000, is the "cream of the crop" The T6-52 turret is also better than the paldin South Africa also makes a more modern gun if im not mistaken MRSI is the future of guns and mortars in my opinion, (unless the MLRS wins completely) within 3.5 min from receiving orders some of these new guns can release six to ten 155/52 rnds and be away from firing position. The Paladin is a good system, but technology has left it behind.
 
Quote    Reply

norden    RE:crusader vs Options   11/5/2002 2:01:26 AM
United Defense who manufactures the Paladin ( or refits) also exports the International Howitzer which is (by their admission)an upgrade. Another really nice peice of artillery is Bofors 155 FH77B They boast from receiving orders on the move they can stop, fire ten rnds, and be out of firirng position in three min. i would imagine that is better than the Paladins firpower by an order of magnitude
 
Quote    Reply

palladin    RE:crusader vs Options   11/8/2003 8:10:16 AM
Crusader would have been the most effective artillery system ever built. Problem is that it doesn't fit DoD's CONOPS. When the world was bi-polar and the US was forward deployed, Crusader was the answer. I think you'll agree that the world has changed post 1989 and that change has accelerated after 9/11.
 
Quote    Reply

WinsettZ    RE:crusader vs Options   11/24/2003 7:58:19 AM
At least we have good crews: it eliminates a bottleneck other then lower technology. Even so, we need something firing fast like the Crusader: but it seems large, very large, and thus as immobile as the Abrams.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy