The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
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: SP or Towed for Norway?
Guardsman 7207    8/19/2006 3:12:20 PM
Norway has the old M109, its been in service for decades and badly needs a replacement. It was to be the Pzh2000, but the government backed out in the last minute due to financial reasons. Really screwed over the suppliers, the Dutch who were selling off some off their surplus inventory, but that is another story...

Norways situation is this: enourmous territory, difficult terrain, poor road network, lots of bridges, most of whom dont support more than 65 tons(or less), and little or no heavy lift capacity, neither helo's nor fixed wing.

Then the questions is: SP or Towed arty? In such a situation,what gives you enough firepower and mobility? Are SP guns always the better choice? Maybe a variant of the Caesar system would do better? Or simply a towed M777 or a very light alternative with the L119?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
Yimmy    RE:SP or Towed for Norway?   8/19/2006 3:57:08 PM
For Norway I think I would go for the L119 light gun with chinook for mobility. With Norways distances and their skill set for fighting in cold and high terrain, I would say helicopter mobility is a must, while you can carry more 105mm shells than 155mm shells in a chopper.
 
Quote    Reply

Guardsman 7207    RE:SP or Towed for Norway?   8/20/2006 7:17:24 AM
I would agree - unfortunately I don't think the Chinook will ever be used by Norway, but I am guessing maybe the NH-90 Tactical Transport - I doubt that chopper will be able to lift a 155mm (never heard of it being tested at least), but definetely the 105mm, with limited supplies. But that would leave Norway without 155mm guns... is that recommendable?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:SP or Towed for Norway?   8/20/2006 2:31:42 PM
So it's not like Norway is so NATO-dependent that it needs to cling to the commonality issue: 105 or 155mm, as in every other NATO associate. (After all, when really was the last time any given NATO ally was so desperate for ammo that it had to borrow/lease ammunition from another NATO ally? Ever at all?) Point I'm getting at: Scandanavia's (Finland, Norway, Sweden) defense forces have always operated a collection of indegenous and foreign equipment, and not always adhering to the NATO norms. Case in point: for many years, Sweden operated the 120mm KARIN towed SP gun (using the basic FH77 chassis), which could reach 27km with its ammo, outshooting any 105mm and most 122mm systems, and quite respectable when compared to any 39-cal 155mm systems (which reach 30km w/ RAP & Base Bleed ammo). Now, with the proliferation of the 120mm mortar systems (the AMOS twin 120mm coming out of Finland's Patria, and the new single-barrel NEMO counterpart), perhaps it can be decided that a SP mortar will suffice (with the coming generation of mortar PGMs getting to 14km+, on par with NATO 105mm howitzers, the best of which get just beyond 17km). Why should Norway be limited to just choosing between 105mm or 155mm, just because eveybody else in the NATO political circle has decided to be bound by the commonality issue that has yet to prove it's been an alliance necessity? And just because economies of scale dictate 105 or 155 would be the cheapest options (due to the fact that countless companies manufacture systems & support in those calibers), that doesn't necessarily mean the benefits others see in these two calibers will best suit Norway's requirements. With the proper chassis (will it be primarily towed by vehicle, or flown by chopper?), anything 105-120mm howitzer would do nicely, without over-burdening supply helos with bulky loads of 155mm ammo in far less numbers of rounds per payload as compares to lesser calibers. Shucks, maybe BAe (Royal Ordnance division) can even submit a 4.5" proposal, based off its Mk 8 naval gun. Enough surface combatants still mount the weapon to justify ammo production, and with the latest extended-range shells reaching about 27.5km. Plus, it has been suggested that the RN switched to it from 4.7in on the grounds that the 4.5in had better ballistics. It all comes down to what exactly are Norway's tactical fire support requirements: a given target/threat requiring X-amount of explosives delivery over Y-range in Z-time, with the most favorable logistical footprint on the forces using it. And seeing as Norway's is not a heavily-Chinook-reliant military (as was already mentioned), why should they limit their decision to NATO-only options, especially if solely on the grounds of politics?
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink    RE:SP or Towed for Norway?   8/20/2006 2:39:50 PM
You need both. SPHs are for mechanized units, while towed artillery pieces can be best with heli-borne units.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink    RE:SP or Towed for Norway?   8/20/2006 2:44:53 PM
BTW, one thing good about Helicopters in Norway is that, while helicopters in tropical countries lost some horse power, they have extra horse power due to cold temperature up there. I think M777s are better than L119, because 105mm, though fires faster, has smaller range and about half the punch each round compared to 155mm. In the future, Norway can also get Excaliber from the US or make your own 155mm PGM. It means more efficiency per artillery pieces, less crew required, less ammunition resupply.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:SP or Towed for Norway?   8/20/2006 3:42:39 PM
How is the mortar situation in Norway?
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:SP or Towed for Norway?   8/20/2006 4:28:18 PM
I don't see why the 155mm caliber has such a fan base these days. Sure 155mm shells are impressive, but back in the past guns as small as 75mm have shown themselves to be very effective in their own right. Norway does not have the capability or funds to build a large SPG force to complement mechanised forces, to cover the country. While helicopter deployable forces are of far greater use in expeditionary warfare. I would question how you can call a light weight 155mm helicopter deployable given the limited number of shells which can be transported.
 
Quote    Reply

Griffin    RE:SP or Towed for Norway?   8/20/2006 7:28:08 PM
dogtag: "And seeing as Norway's is not a heavily-Chinook-reliant military (as was already mentioned), why should they limit their decision to NATO-only options, especially if solely on the grounds of politics?" The answer is simple - inter-operability. It does not help the mutual defence options of deployed forces if their equipment and supplies can't support the troops because everyone is doing their own thing. It is also makes one wonder what the Norwegian government is thinking? Are they trying to 'dodge any bullets' by not being able to be deployed due to their lack of inter-operability?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Kudos to Yimmy   8/20/2006 7:39:12 PM
...for bringing up a good point: even 75mm pack howitzers proved their mettle in the right circumstances. And since no one is in a super hurry to totally remove 50-60mm mortars from their military inventories... don't those compare similarly to lightweight pack howitzers (75mm thru 25-pdr class) in range and firepower? It all depends on what Norway wants to do mostly with them: -self defense/Norwegian operations, -or coalition actions beside other NATO elements? In arctic territories, dog- or reindeer-pulled sleds (yes, they do use them) would have an easier time pulling a pallet of medium-caliber ammo as opposed to a few dozen 155mm rounds and charges (even though helos would be the preferred choice). Fitted with any types of the current multi-option fuzes (air burst capable proximity fuzes) that can fit even 50-60mm mortars, even medium-caliber guns/howitzers will still work against exposed troops: in all actuality, the greatest benefit the 155mm has going for it is the fact that PGMs in this caliber are the proliferate choice for many nations, in the fact that they generally will carry enough HE filler for one-shot kills against MBT-class targets. Very doubtful you can get a 75-105mm PGM to do the same, unless it attacks from a near-vertical angle as do most mortar rounds (and most AFVs nowadays can withstand 155mm shell splinters, so the overall lethal spread pattern of fragments is only really a danger to open personnel and exposed soft (unarmored) equipment). Seeing as it's doubtful that Norway will ever have to face massed Soviet hordes at her borders, is the extra blast radius of 155mm really necessary? Higher rates of fire from smaller-caliber weapons may be all they need. But, considering the general sparseness of Norwegian operations (spread out over a given area), what few SP weapons Norway can afford to buy, it might behoove them to get maximum range: this points to that South Afrikan LEO 105 system, which can reach the same ranges of current 39-cal 155mm systems. link link But the biggest problem with the G7 LEO is, @ 3000-3800kg, it's the heaviest 105 on the market. Still, it's sling-loadable by most medium helicopters, although ammo carriage would be more limited.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Let me try that second link again...   8/20/2006 7:41:45 PM
(gotta watch those brackets!) link
 
Quote    Reply

Guardsman 7207    RE:SP or Towed for Norway?   8/20/2006 7:45:00 PM
Interoperability is certainly an issue. And not just because they need it, given the increased level of participation in international operations, but also because the signal effect of buying something that is not NATO standard would indicate less commitment to the NATO cooperation. Also NATO troops train regularily in Norway, using in particular 105mm (Royal Marines). So that is why I only consider 105's and 155's a real option. There are certainly those that would argue towards less focus on interoperability, such as those who favour the JAS-39 Gripen from Saab over the F-35 for the new fighter aircraft, but even they use the recent NATO standardization of equipment within the Gripen as an argument in favour. So there is no dodging bullets, even among them... But using M777 with Excalibur, would you not get more guns, more accurate fire at a better cost than with a fleet of old M109's? And still have enough mobility? Given Norway's size, basing yourself on helicopters would be extremely expensive, you would need a vast fleet of them, so much of this will have to be moved through the mud no matter what...
 
Quote    Reply

Guardsman 7207    RE:SP or Towed for Norway? Doggtag   8/20/2006 7:50:43 PM
Humm... nice idea, but no more reindeer sleds out there anymore:P What I think is more plausible is the Bv206, but it would need something heavier than a mortar, for instance the L119 behind. But the essence of my thread was: Can a modern force actually rely on the 105, or do you really need the 155 for their firepower?
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:SP or Towed for Norway? Doggtag   8/20/2006 8:10:14 PM
"Can a modern force actually rely on the 105, or do you really need the 155 for their firepower?" If you think in terms of requirements rather than individual weapons, for instance, "We need to be able to deliver X amount of ordnance on Y location within Z amount of time", you can replace the firepower of a 155mm gun in a number of ways. As has already been stated, 105mm guns can achieve a higher rate of fire, and can carry more shells for the weight of a 155mm. I believe this line of thinking was decided upon in the British army standardising on 81mm mortars, and getting rid of all our heavy mortars. Alternatively, you can replace the firepower of the 155mm guns with air-power. Ther Germans did this in WWII, using their Stukas to try and make up for their lack of suitable heavy artillery. Of course in the case of the Germans, although they started with succes, when running into strong enemy air activity their air-power means of delivering the firepower crumbled. Other options would include battleild rocket artillery such as LMRS, or even perhaps UAV's armed with Helfire.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:SP or Towed for Norway? Doggtag   8/21/2006 5:53:47 AM
It all gets back to purpose. This will determine the balance between requirements for protection, mobility and firepower, an equation that for arty is far starker tna it now is for tanks. For protection, SPs obviously give better protection against conventional munitions, but they can be fired from inside buildings and this gives some protection against precision munitions (confusing the sensors rather than physical). On the other had towed guns, particularly small ones are not easy to destroy but offer their crews virtually no protection. The only towed gun that tried to do anything about this was the 1950s 85-mm Garrington gun that never entered service. History shows that mobility is mostly a peacetime concern. You can move SPs by rail or rd tptrs into the area of operations, that's what is done with tanks and other AFVs. It's also notable that in the 1960/70s the Bundeswehr decided that M109 was suitable to provide direct support to 4 Mtn Div. Firepower is the combination of range, rate of fire and shell weight, with the important note that cargo munitions, particularly those with smart payloads still need larger shells. From this its easy to pick the worst option - guns mounted on trucks that only have armoured cabs, big targets and no crew protection in action for no discernable mobility benefit. Therefore if wou want an armoured SP you look for the best value for money, something that isn't overburdened with bells, whistles and best posible performance like PzH2000. However, you probably need the munitions capability of 155mm. 105mm is good in some situations but its really not suitable as the artillery mainstay. Incidentally the UK has never seriously used 'NATO' type 105mm, both Abbot and L118 fire 105mm Fd ammo, and its the latter that they've always deployed in Norway with light forces.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:SP or Towed for Norway? Doggtag   8/21/2006 6:42:42 AM
I would go for a mix of 120mm mortars (instead of 105mm howitzers), and either towed 155mm M777, or possibly the Supacat-mounted M777. I would also seek to add a small (very small) number of MLRS systems, with GMLRS rockets. The 120mm mortars give you rate of fire, with the 155mm giving long range fire, and the GMLRS gives precision strike capability.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.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