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
AlbanyRifles    Rainmaker   10/15/2004 1:38:22 PM
What unit are you in?
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Artillery for Light Troops -    10/16/2004 2:16:32 AM
"You can carry them by yourself for short distances. I've done it. However, on towed pieces, like the M198, for decent ramming, you need two people." I've always had some sympathy for guys having to operate M198, it was supposed to light wight to be heli portable, Ha. In return for this non-capability you got features that were the norm in WW2, not what was possible when M198 was designed. In this case 'flick-ramming', you don't need manual ramming on a towed 155mm. As for wearing out guys carrying ammo, that depends on how far it has to be carried and the related issue of how its packaged. If ammo is delivered to the back of the gun by MHE on pallets or better still ULCs, then its a non-issue.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Artillery for Light Troops -    10/16/2004 7:05:25 AM
...If your 198s are being moved around solely by Chinooks, then its obvious you'll not have access to MHEs (via HEMTT or PLS?), 5tons, and M548s to hoof the ammo for you. .
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Artillery for Light Troops -    10/16/2004 9:54:49 AM
I can think of at least one rough terrain fork lift that would move a 155mm ULC and I think would fit inside a Chinook, if not it was well within the weight for underslung. Entered service mid 70s. 'Eager Beaver', I guess the US did not bother with an equivalent.
 
Quote    Reply

Rainmaker-55    RE:Rainmaker - Unit   10/16/2004 10:19:05 AM
2 - 122 FA, ILARNG
 
Quote    Reply

Rainmaker-55    RE:Artillery for Light Troops -    10/16/2004 10:27:44 AM
"As for wearing out guys carrying ammo, that depends on how far it has to be carried and the related issue of how its packaged. If ammo is delivered to the back of the gun by MHE on pallets or better still ULCs, then its a non-issue" Ammunition is stored, with towed pieces, a short distance away from the howitzer's trails, so that it doesn't interfere with the howitzer's traverse and recoil, and to provide a little stand-off distance if something goes wrong. With the M198, and I'm assuming the new M777 (since I find it unlikely that a towed piece will have a non-people powered ramming system), the round will be carried by two people on a metal tray, in a horizontal position, to the breech. While holding the lip, and nose, of the round to the breech, other people will ram the round into the breech. So yes, it will remain a two-man carry.
 
Quote    Reply

Rainmaker-55    RE:Artillery for Light Troops -    10/16/2004 10:36:18 AM
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/ Finally went through this. I'm freaking sold!
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Artillery for Light Troops -    10/17/2004 9:31:31 PM
neutralizer, on the Abbot-to-M119 article I posted, I was NOT implying "the Brits ripped the guns out of the Abbots, put them on wheels, and called them L118s, then the Americans painted their US Army logo on them and called them M119s." By the encycs I have been using for some time (20th Century Weapons and Warfare, Jane's Armour and Artillery, Greenhill Military series), the quote is that "The Light Gun L118 was introduced to replace the OTO-Melara 105mm Pack Howitzer, which was found to be insufficiently robust and did not have adequate range. The new weapon was designed to be capable of firing the Abbot ammunition, and is about 30 calibers long" "The Light Gun ordnance was developed using the Abbot barrel as a basis, although the Abbot has now been withdrawn." I would like to understand your definition of evolution: I stated that the M119 evolved from the L118, which, by your description (British Light Gun reconfigured to fire US-pattern ammo and becoming the L119, with the US then adopting it and, with modifications, calling it the M119. Hence my interpretation of calling the M119 an "Americanized" version of the British Light Gun. I realize perfectly that bolt-for-bolt they are not identical, and never intended to imply they were. But the basis for my assumption is there: the M119, however you trace its geneaology, originally stemmed from the Abbot's gun. For those of you guys looking for extra range out of your 105, short of using the Denel LEO, the next closest alternative is RDM's (of MOBAT fame) M101/37 model, which can safely employ Charge 8 (thanks to a larger chamber) and reach 17.2km standard, or 20.5km with the M913 HERA. Royal Ordnance claims the L119 Light Gun using US ammo can muster 19.5km with the Charge 8/M913 HERA (this taken from Jane's Armour and Artillery.) Of course, no figures are given for respective CEP at those ranges. Range means nothing without accuracy. When I spoke of equipping artillery teams with 60mm or 81mm mortars, I was speaking not for division- or battalion-sized "support work", but for the forward-deployed light elements (such as company-based platoons (I DO realize though that battalions ARE made of the same companies, and divisions of those battalions.) Perhaps "Units of Action" concepts could be adapted to artillery work: a light artillery (mortars for short range work, <10km) group, a medium artillery group with heavier and longer ranged howitzers and mortars (10-20km), and the heavy section with the 20km+ 155mm guns and MLRS systems. Certainly, you're not going to move an entire artillery battalion by helicopter, but your forward-deployed recon teams (as was common for A-stan) might need something more than their personal weapons in an area not suited for large emplacements of artillery (like large 105mm or 155mm fire support bases.) Realize this is all suggestion, and that room for improvement/modification exists in all such orghanizational theories. A rapid, mobile 81mm or 120mm mortar might come in handy in certain situations, just as fixed emplacements are adequate for others. For that matter, the bed of a Humvee is quite adequate at absorbing a 60mm mortar recoil (and there are recoil-damping systems available even for these lightweights to lessen it even further. Perhaps a lightweight (scaled down from 81mm or 120mm vehicle mounts) turntable for a 60mm long range mortar for Humvee application (or even towed by an ATV?) would afford even squad-sized elements a weapon with longer and more lethal range than the Mk19 (and we already know 60mm rounds can be guided, via the USN/UDLP 60mm ET Technology Demonstrator, firing its command-guided 2.7kg rounds.) I'm trying to find the link for the European company (Hirtenberger? RUAG?) who has developed the 60mm HEDP mortar round supposedly capable of 12inch RHA pentration (It's supposedly intended both for AFVs and fortified structures)...this would be ideal if you can pinpoint an MBT's hatches or engine decking. An interesting collection of thoughts on US 60mm mortar employment is: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_01-15_ch10.htm (or scrounge up a copy of FM 7-90, of which there is an internet-accessible "copy" over at globalsec also.) 60mm may seem light to some arty proponents, but if you're the one coming under fire, you're not really concerning whether their shooting 60mm or 155mm, so long as you can get under cover. And any of you guys who've actually seen a 60mm HE round detonate, it's quite capable of seriously disabling anything without armor (logistics vehicles, civilian-drafted technicals, parked aircraft, etc) Considering the amount of weapons familiarization that is done in US Army Basic Training (I went in 1990 and learned Ma Duece, M60, M203, AT4, LAW, Claymore, and grenades in addition to M16), training on the basics of 60mm mortar employment wouldn't be asking all that much more (consider all the weapons familiarization that Al
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:Artillery for Light Troops - doggtag   10/17/2004 9:48:28 PM
doggtag wrote: "Perhaps a lightweight (scaled down from 81mm or 120mm vehicle mounts) turntable for a 60mm long range mortar for Humvee application (or even towed by an ATV?) would afford even squad-sized elements a weapon with longer and more lethal range than the Mk19 (and we already know 60mm rounds can be guided, via the USN/UDLP 60mm ET Technology Demonstrator, firing its command-guided 2.7kg rounds.)" Hmm, well I question the value of attaching a mortar of any size to a squad-sized, non-SOF element. These guys probably have enough on their hands performing regular infantry duties & manning crew-served weapons. Plus, how often does a squad really need more than the 2km range of a Mk19? Perhaps in Afghanistan, but that's about it. I think they'd rather have a lighter MAAWS or other RPG-like, direct-fire weapon instead.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Artillery for Light Troops - B Smitty   10/17/2004 10:32:31 PM
"...I think they'd rather have a lighter MAAWS or other RPG-like, direct fire weapon instead..." As we are seeing even today, it is not always the troops who use the weapons who decide what they get, but rather it is the politicians, whose lives will never depend directly on those weapons in time of battle, who decide with which weapons the troops are equipped. Actually, the solution to the rifleman's support requirements comes in the form of the modern rifle grenade. When compared to the warheads available in other nations' inventories, I think the M203 weapon is a poor choice. There are scores of manufacturers around the world who make very formidable, and far more lethal, rifle-launched munitions than the 40mm grenades. In the US, there were 2 notable overlooked concepts for rifle-launched weapons: The Olin Ordnance/McDonnell Douglas RAAM (Rifleman's Anti Armor Munition) was a 1.65kg, 250m range capable round reportedly capable of penetrating ">400mm". This was direct-fire capable using a bullet trap which initiated a small rocket motor a distance from the firer. This weapon would be ideal at defeating all manner of vehicles, including MBTs from the flanks. The device was designed to fit over NATO-standard (22mm?) rifle flash suppressors, and the pictures indicate it is roughly in diameter the size of the forward handguard assembly of an M16 series rifle (and about the length of the handguard base to the muzzle tip of an M16A2 when observing its overall length. It even comes with a small nose probe for ideal detonation from the armor.) A second system was the Brunswick Corporation's RAW (Rifleman's Assault Weapon), which required an easy attachment onto the end of a NATO-sized muzzle flash suppressor. The round itself, in concept, was an assisted (spin stabilized by a small rocket ignited by gas vented from the gun muzzle), over-sized, round hand grenade look-alike. It was 140mm in diameter (5.5inches), weighed 4.73kg all up and was about 12 inches long. It had a range of about 1500m, and contained 2.2pounds of plastic explosive, which in tests showed its effectiveness at blasting an almost 15inch diameter hole through 8 inches of concrete. Recoil and accuracy of both of these rounds is described as very favorable, although no mention is made of procurement other than "ready for production." There are scores of other rounds available, but these two seem to offer the greatest capability for their roles. Certainly, an air-burst round developed from the 25mm OCSW fuzing would be suitable for a rifle grenade also. These weapons would be ideal for reconn elements, light patrol infantry, and convoy protection. With the small sizes available in current digital camera optics, and the even smaller sizes capable in servo actuators, and the thrust available from modern small rocket motors, it is certainly possible to conceptualize a guided rifle grenade that could fit in a Pringles can. Via a secure short range datalink, an individual soldier could easily have access to a 1000m+ range, lightweight AFV- or bunker-defeating PGM. .
 
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