Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Artillery for Light Troops
Thomas    6/11/2003 5:24:12 AM
On the infantry board, there is a discussion of the future of light infantry. On the armour board there is a discussion of the future (if any) of the Light tank. To complement these discussion in the spirit of combined arms: What sort of artillery should go with Light troops. It should be airportable. It should be "resupplyable". It should be able to operate under the conditions of the Light Infantry. Any thoughts?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT
ArtyEngineer    RE:Artillery for Light Troops - M777   10/19/2004 2:10:46 PM
Weight requirement is actually driven by the MV 22!!! Regarding Swabbing, its my understanding that it is standard US practice to do this after every round!!! Believe me it is necessary especially when firing M203A1 and M232 Zone 5 charges, they are not very clean burning at all. Regarding how the crew operates the weapon, all I can tell you is tha we have had a Master Sergant and two Gunnery Sergants from the USMC permenantly on the program for the last 4 years who provided most of the input to this and they have it exactly how they want it. You are correct though some areas do appear inefficient especiallly when operating a reduced detachment, but wioth a 10 man crew things get pretty easy. The feed back I am getting from the operational testing happening at 29 Palms is that after an initial "What the Heck is this thing" attitude to teh weapon from the crews, they now love it. The entire battery of 5 guns is managing emplacement times of less than 3 minutes at night, and the norm for a 16 round fire mission is 3 minutes.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:...on M102s with life left in 'em   10/19/2004 2:20:32 PM
Yup, the M102 is what is pumping out of the AC-130...not sure of the recoil mechanism it uses. http://www.specwarnet.com/vehicles/spectre.htm
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    RE:Artillery for Light Troops - nichevo   10/20/2004 2:21:22 AM
Smitty, thanks for replying. Disposable vs. reusable...a battle to be fought...aside from weight and cost, it seems likelier to have a launcher and five rounds than to have five launchers. Anyway, either could launch a slow, fat rocket with the properties you and I roundly agree on, esp. to be available on a Netfires grid. Perhaps a UAV 'spotter' round, like the grenade camera or better with GPS/laser/etc, fired first, then that is used to guide the others. Nothing on my disposable mortar? I thought it rather neat. Everybody could carry one or more. They could reproduce any effect of a mortar shell, without the weight of the mortar; delay-fuzed; set as mines; anti-missile/arty applications when slaved into e.g. Shortstop or Firefinder; a hundred could go off at once. What am I missing?
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Artillery for Light Troops - M777   10/20/2004 6:27:17 AM
Ah of course MV 22 for USMC, but I thought it was a joint USMC/Army acquisition even if the Army's commitment isn't as solid as the Marines. Also I'd have though Osprey had rather greater cargo capacity so weight would be less critical. Swabbing out was/is standard practice with the US pre-MACS charges, so perhaps the procedure only applies to these. Somewhere I've come across a pic of the first USMC crews being trained by a Brit SMIG (sergeant major instructor in gunnery)a few years back.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:Artillery for Light Troops - nichevo   10/20/2004 8:32:45 AM
nichevo wrote: "Nothing on my disposable mortar? I thought it rather neat." Well, I'm not real crazy about it. If soldiers are going to carry something like this, why not just carry rounds for the company 60mms instead? They're bound to be considerably lighter. This way you don't have to train every soldier in the intricacies of indirect fire or get them thinking about whether they should bring an extra AT-4/BDM/LAW/MPIM or spigot mortar round. I go back to my earlier statement that I don't think platoons and below really need an indirect fire capability. About all they need is some way to handle enemy infantry in defilade. This can be accomplished with the M203, rifle grenades, OCSW (in the future), or an airburst MAAWS or disposable rocket round. I'd rather use the platoon-and-below's limited weight allowance on improved means of calling fires from higher echelons - things like Viper GPS/laser binocs (or a rifle sight equivalent), and improved radios/datalinks.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    disposable mortars and turning on the spigot - nichevo   10/20/2004 11:14:29 AM
You're pretty much hitting on an already-used concept, Nichevo. Spigot mortars have been used for ages (pre-WW1.) Some of the more famous ones were the massive Imp Japanese 320mm spigot mortar that is of Okinawa fame: http://www.nps.gov/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003131-00/sec5.htm (under the heading "the Japanese 320mm spigot mortar) Also, there was the "Flying Dustbin", the large 290mm Petard spigot mortar mounted in a number of WW2 Churchill AVRE tanks: http://www.d-daytanks.org.uk/exhibits/churchill-avre.html Although a relatively short-range weapon (<100m), it was ideal at smashing fortifications, barricades, and gun emplacements. (The massive German Sturmtiger, although appearing from the outside to possibly be a similar weapon, was actually launching a rocket developed from an ASW weapon, but the concept was basically the same: a heavy, short range projectile for slaughtering defenses: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/sttig.htm However, by the time this beast was ready for production, German forces, mostly no longer on the offensive, found the vehicle itself more of a hindrance, although the "shell" packed quite a wallop.) Another interesting, modern spigot design is the FLY-K, a small and lightweight "commando-type" mortar: http://armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/2003/blackwater4.html Actually referred to by the manufacturer as a "captive piston" system, it technically operates the same as a spigot mortar: pushing itself up off a base "stem" (although encased in a "cup" resembling a short section of tube) rather than being shot out of a full tube like "standard" mortars use. Although the FLY-K is rather small (2" caliber), the concept of the larger systems, especially if coupled to modern precision electronics guidance, could prove ideal one-shot, short range, heavy weapons: equipped with HESH/HEP, FAE or thermobaric-types, or even air-burst fragmentation warheads, these could cause fantastic damage for an infantry support weapon (carry it in a vehicle, not on a soldier's back.) Like the Imp Jap 320mm model, you'd only need the "stem" base to withstand even half a dozen launches (if that) before it's just discarded. It could be command guided rather easily, being relatively slow, and there would be no difficulty fitting a laser seeker head. It need not be overly complicated like the Netfires system, as it would be designed for short range work (<1600mm) against fortifications and emplacements, but not requiring a complicated and expensive launch/control system like TOW or Javelin (it could use existing laser designators. It wouldn't really need GPS guidance, as it's going to be a very close-range system, within line-of-sight- although the latest GPS receivers are damn small: the Microsoft Streets and Trips software kit available at most electronics stores retails for about US$130 and features computer software and a GPS receiver about the size of 4 AA batteries, accuracy is suggested as about 2m!) It need not weigh over 25kg, if even that much: 5kg of "military grade" explosives are more than sufficient to smash any fortified positions or emplaced AFVs. Still, a big beast like the IJN/IJA 320mm system, by sheer size and blast damage, has incredible psychological effect, although it's definitely not a "city" weapon. .
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:Artillery for Light Troops - M777   10/20/2004 11:51:51 AM
Got a little confession to make, lets just say our marketing people got carried away when talking about the weapon being lifted by the Blackhawk. That is for a "Combat Emergency" situation only. It will pick it up but it cant fly very fast or very far with the 9800lbs slung underneath. The army will be using the 47 for all helo lifts. Know the SMIG in the picture very well. He works for BAE now and coordinates all the operator training, manuals etc. Actually crew training right now is carried out by ESTRA personnel. All maintainer training to date is carried out by former REME personnel now employed by BAE.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    RE:disposable mortars and turning on the spigot - nichevo   10/21/2004 7:17:34 AM
I don't claim to invent the spigot mortar, just the disposable mortar. It should be designed absolutely as light as possible. I thought 60mm was not big enough and people wanted the 81mm or 120mm power. This would provide that without the weight of the mortar--just add 1 or 2 lbs to the carry weight of each shell. With longer range than Tom Hanks and Matt Damon flinging 60mm shells in SPR.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:disposable mortars and turning on the spigot - nichevo   10/21/2004 7:37:35 AM
Surely even a disposable mortar would need a heavy base plate...
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:disposable mortars and turning on the spigot - nichevo   10/21/2004 8:18:50 AM
Nichevo wrote:"I thought 60mm was not big enough and people wanted the 81mm or 120mm power. This would provide that without the weight of the mortar--just add 1 or 2 lbs to the carry weight of each shell. With longer range than Tom Hanks and Matt Damon flinging 60mm shells in SPR" I think folks are largely happy with the 60 mm nowadays. With airburst fuzing, the casualty radius is similar to a point-detonated 81mm. Plus, a 60mm mortar round weighs around 4 lbs. An 81mm round (by iteself) weighs 10 lbs or more. A 120mm round weighs close to 30. Adding a baseplate and barrel to any of them will make them significantly heavier. So a guy can probably carry three 60mm rounds for the same weight as a single 81mm disposable mortar (assuming at least 2 lbs of additional weight). If he has to carry a 120mm, he probably won't be carrying anything else!
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics