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
doggtag    RE:Artillery for Light Troops   9/5/2004 7:15:11 PM
...and you don't go firing 155mm rounds into downtown areas. 81mm, even "puny" 60mm, are sufficient for urban operations. 155mm just risks too many non-combatant casualties in urban environments, even moreso if you go spreading cluster (grenade carrier) rounds all over. Besides, the turreted direct-fire mortars have sufficient anti-AFV capability, the 60mm and 81mm systems have HEDP, HEAT, and even APFSDS capable of defeating anything head-on short of an MBT, which can be countered by flank shots. And anyone who says 60mm mortar rounds are ineffective has never been on the receiving end of 60mm airburst, available from several different adjustable proximity fuzes, with the US M734 fuze providing impact, near-surface (about 1m off the ground), or proximity (about 1-4m off the ground) burst modes. The US M224 mortar can get out to about 3500m, just over 2 miles. And there is a C-06A1 system in Israeli service that can reach an extended range of 6000m, about 3&3/4 miles (at this range, you won't see your target clearly, and unless you are pinpoint targeting a vehicle or fortification (it can be done by using modern range-finding equipment), I would suspect that longer-ranged 81mm mortars would start to be used at these ranges.) And 60mm shells have at least as much explosive as a hand grenade. Suggesting 60mm mortars (which can "throw" farther than a hand grenade)are useless also suggests hand grenades containing less explosive are even more useless. The French developed a series of direct-fire capable turreted mortars (and we've discussed the practicality in lenght on other threads): these can be both breech-loaded from inside the turret (and some feature a "clip" feed mechanism of 3-4 rounds in rapid succession) or muzzle-loaded from outside the turret (useful on hot days when you don't want to roast inside the vehicle.) Rockets and ATGM systems have a backblast area (and signature) that needs to be taken into account. So there will always be fair argument over which is better: heavy-tubed ordnance with no backblasts (with mortars not needing big recoil mechanisms other than a baseplate to transfer the recoil into the ground), or lightweight systems with backblasts. If we go for light vehicle-mounted weapons, certainly breech-loading tube weapons are ideal. But man-portable systems generally dictates lightweight rocket-propelled missiles (anything more than 60mm "commando" mortars.) Mortars and gun-howitzers offer the high-trajectory benefit, as opposed to higher-velocity direct fire weapons. Definitely, long-barreled ordnance can be unfavorable if you get tricked into entering an enclosed area (as a rule, never take you tank down a street in a combat area which restricts your 360 traverse of the main gun.) Shorter-barrel weapons like "combination guns", as direct-fire capable mortars are called, can easily traverse in the narrowest streets (although firing arc may be limited due to houses and buildings.) There is the French DEFA 90mm F1 and its South African GT2 equivalent (as seen on Ratel 90 and other AFVs) and the Belgian erill Mk 3 90mm (seen on Scorpion 90 light tanks and other AFVs.) These weapons have short enough barrels for urban ops, and their 90mm ammo is sufficient also against everything head-on except MBTs. Nowadays, troops don't want to be caught in the open in forward areas manning fixed-emplacement (towed) guns which require any amount of set-up time. So nothing under 105mm with a range of at least 10 miles (keeping you outside mortar range) is desireable here. (There was the 90mm MECAR field mount, a towed gun that was about L33 and weighed just under 2000 pounds, quite ideal for manhandling by troops. But its range was limited by the low-angle mounting to less than 10km (the same range envelope as heavier-hitting 120mm mortars.) There was also a Swiss 90mm gun (M50 & M57) of about 1400 pounds, again limited in range by low-angle mounting, and again falling inside the range of 120mm mortars. There are also Russian and Chinese 76mm (ZIS-3 series) and 85mm (D-44 series) guns, which could range out to 16km easily and afforded decent AP rounds for light-to-medium anti-AFV use. But these were at least 2500lbs (76mm ZIS 3), so manhandling could become strenuous over time if no prime movers are available, even though the ammo was fairly "light" as compared to 155mm (fixed ammo for the 85mm guns weighed less overall than just the 100-odd pound shell of a 155mm.) There are several 105mm light guns and pack howitzers, the lightest being the Italian OTO Melara "modello 56" 105mm pack howitzer weighing in at about 1300kg. But its range was only about 11km, almost the limit for 120mm mortars (which have crossed 12km with extended range/RAP shells.) An interesting "field gun" is the Russian (and Chinese copied) 82mm Vasilyek automatic mortar. It is a towed (but manhandle-capable) system, which, depending on model and mount, can reach out to almost 5000m at
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3    RE:Artillery for Light Troops   9/6/2004 10:26:38 AM
Easily comes in several parts that can be carryed onto the field dissasembled, and hooked together for the fight. Has someone else here mentioned this possibility?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Artillery for Light Troops   9/6/2004 7:41:16 PM
j3, that's the idea behind the Italian model 56 pack howitzer: it breaks down into 11 sub-assemblies, barrel being the heaviest. Ideally, pack animals (mules, camels, horses,..elephants?) would be used: it is doubtful that any soldiers would want to hoof the barrel any distance in addition to their field gear. Besides, there is still need for someothing to move around some ammo, and it would be too cumbersome for a soldier to carry a complete 105mm round suggesting 33 pound shell and a charge section) in addition to his field gear (which could easily already be almost 100 pounds.) That might be a reason why US SpecOps/Spec Forces and other nations are pursuing the fielding of lightweight (civilain model) ATVs, to act as movers in rough terrain..
 
Quote    Reply

worldbuilder    RE:Artillery for Light Troops   9/7/2004 6:13:06 AM
Ive been watching with a sort of bemusement as various people here debate replacing the howitzers with mortars, or vice versa. This is like replacing grenade-launchers with grenades. These 2 types of weapons have a similar explosive effect non the enemy, but the range differs greatly. Im not too sure how far artillery shoots, probably 50-100km. 120mm mortars are lucky to make it to 6km. (except for one old soviet design that used rocket-boosted ammunition) Add to this that mortars are great for defence, as in breaking up an enemy attack, whereas artillery is more aggressive, for destoying enemy formations as well as facilities. I am in a light infantry battallion, in the Bundeswehr, and I am a mortarman. We use the simple 120mm mortar, not mounted on any vehicle, only transported with G-Wagons. IN 2006 we should be getting this Wiesel 2 Mortartank solution. Regardless if the mortar is on a vehicle, mortars are very maneuverable, flexible, easy to hide from airforces, but very limited in range. You will not see any wartime deployments somewhere without a COMBINATION of artillery types, be it mortars and CAS, or mortars and howitzers, or mortars and MLRS, depending on terrain, available forces, and mission. You can't expect handgrenades to accomplish what grenade-launchers do, but grenade-launchers can't be used effectively probably under 40m. If I am mistaken about the ranges of large arty, or grenade-launchers, please correct me. Our automatic grenade-launcher, the German Granatmachinenwaffe, can shoot 40mm grenades out to 1200m.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Artillery for Light Troops   9/7/2004 6:50:22 AM
you bring up good points on the subject, worldbuilder. The current maximum range of 120mm mortars is about 9km with un-assisted shells. Assisted shells have been tested out to almost 14km (RAP). Artillery gun/howitzers don't yet reach 100km (the massive Paris Gun of WW1 did, but at the expense of having horrible accuracy.) Current record-holder for modern in-service artillery belongs to the 155mm 52-caliber ordnances which can hit just shy of 40km with base-bleed shells. Extended range shells, like South Africa's VLAP, are expected to reach 70km. And the US, big spender that it is, is developing guided rounds that theoretically will reach well out to a hundred miles (160km) if all goes well. I agree with you that there is no "artillery wonder weapon." There is a short range need filled by hand grenades. Then grenade launchers, rifle grenades, and hand held rocket launchers take over, up to the point at which mortars become effective. And mortars are ideal rapid response, lightweight short range weapons. But for longer ranges, tube artillery and heavy rocket systems are necessary. No one system can fulfill all the roles. So nations need to find a balance of firepower that is within their budget. To determine which weapons best suit the need of "artillery for light troops", we must first realize exactly what the nation in question defines as "light troops", and what missions they are expected to perform..
 
Quote    Reply

Worcester    RE:Artillery for Light Troops - Pack How problem   9/8/2004 6:47:57 PM
The prob with the Pack How is it has to be carried somehow since it can't be towed any distance, even on a road. The Brits had them as THE light artillery up til the late 1970's and reported that the absence of a proper suspension system meant their Pack Hows shook to pieces (literally) even on a metalled road. So, unles you have a helo, you'd better get a mule.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Artillery for Light Troops   9/11/2004 2:51:14 AM
For operational or logistic moves you could always carry Pack Hows in the back of a truck. It wasn't road moves that were the problem, it was just wear and tear in operational conditions, particularly if there was a reasonable amount of firing. Even if firing was fairly light they didn't last too well. For example in 1966 the Brits withdrew their units from Borneo (Confrontation ended), the main arty regt had its 18 guns inspected when they were withdrwan to base locations in Brunei and Kuching, the guns had been deployed for under 2 years and were less than 5 years old, 17 were condemned! They'd moved mostly by heli. To suggest that 155mm can't be 'safely' used in urban conditions is untrue. In GW2 Brits made considerable use of 155mm for 'bunker busting' with indirect fire in Basra. They did this without adjustment and opened at converged fire for effect. Several things made it possible, good met, good survey, accurate large scale maps for targets, MV radars on every gun and probable errors that are about half those of M198/M109. Today's arty issue is that the traditional divisions of responsibility between close and depth are disappearing, batteries may be in direct support, but must also engage depth targets whenever necessary. Again in GW2 Brit direct support 105mm found themselves deploying far forward to engage deep targets such as corps HQ. The other difficult challenge is precision and area fire. The former is appearing and its consequences are far less ammo expenditure (cost is another matter). However, some targets are unsuitable for precision munitions in small quantities. The third world has plenty of men and the best way to deal with this sort of target is area fire in quantity. However, the area can also be large, and in effect mean several different targets, engaging these conurrently means having sufficient fire units in an increasingly lower density battlespace. While western countries might prefer to fight fast and mobile they may not always have the option if the enemy chooses to exploit their asymmetric manpower when tactical opportunities arise, as they will.
 
Quote    Reply

ambush    RE:Artillery for Light Troops   9/11/2004 5:24:25 PM
My 2 cents: Systems like the French Caesar are great for "medium" unit like Stryker or a Marine Expeditonary Unit but we are talking LIGHT here. In my opinion the two ideal systems, both towed are 105mm howitzers and 120mm mortars. Figure a battery of each per Brigade. I favor the 105mmm over 155 for a number of reasons. I can lift a full battery of 105s w/prime movers and lot more ammo with the same number (or less depending on the aircraft used)of helo lifts as it would take to lift a section of 155s with less ammo. The same applies for fixed wing movement and deck space on amphibs as well as assests need to get them ashore. There are times when the smaller casulty radius of the 105 would come in handy. You could drop the rounds closer to friendly troops when the bad guys are in the wire. The 120mm mortar of course has less range than a 105mm but has a higher rate of fire and precison rounds now exist or are in development. The 120mm mortar also is capable of higher angle fire than a a Howitzer. There were cases, I believe, where they could not get enough elevation form the howitzers in the mountains of Afghanistan.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Artillery for Light Troops   9/12/2004 7:56:44 AM
Mountain warfare really sucks when you're the guys at the bottom of the hills trying to shoot back at the guys up the hills..
 
Quote    Reply

ambush    RE:Artillery for Light Troops   9/12/2004 10:48:27 AM
>>doggtag RE:Artillery for Light Troops 9/12/2004 7:56:45 AM Mountain warfare really sucks when you're the guys at the bottom of the hills trying to shoot back at the guys up the hills << Amen, It almost always sucks when the bad guys have the high ground.
 
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