The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 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: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
doggtag    RE:SP or Towed for Norway? Doggtag   8/21/2006 10:20:22 AM
(my apologies for the sled dog/reindeer suggestion: the pic I saw was Finnish, not Norge.) A note on the last few posts, what always surprised me was NATO's "reckless abandon" that nothing was needed between 105 and 155 (up until the widespread adoption of shorter-ranged-than-artillery 120mm mortars). For decades, the majority of USN surface combatants, and those of allies who bought US designs, were armed with 5"/127mm weapons. For the USMC especially (trying to maintain at least minimal commonality with USN), I'm surprised no one ever considered (not since pre-WW2) to equip marine-type ground forces (not necessarily just the US forces) with 5" guns, allowing commonality with naval guns (and 5" guided weapons have been under development for some time). There are plenty of mid-calibers: the 4.5" and 120mm guns I mentioned earlier, the Russians adopted 130mm, and had the British kept the 5.5" gun around and improved it on the same level 155mm was, we now would have any number of formidable middle-caliber long-range gun/howitzers, that offer greater payload than 105, yet smaller logistics footprint than 155mm (weight & number of shells per volume), yet with greater ranges than 120mm mortars reach. And shoe-horning course-correction or guidance & steering mechanisms into calibers >105mm would be easier than going to smaller diameters. (For the record, the Russians developed a laser-seeker shell for the mobile 130mm coastal gun (A-222 Bereg?), and France at one time tinkered with the idea of an IR-homing round for its 100mm Compact Naval Mount.) So I've always wondered if some mid-range caliber (4.5-5.5") would offer near-155mm performances, but closer to 105mm bulk for logistics. I am still impressed by the performance figures South Afrika has pulled out of artillery guns: taking the GC-45 concept a step further (G6-52) to create (with the VLAP shell) the longest-ranged, fieldable tube artillery in existence...then taking things a step further with the 30+km-ranged LEO 105 (G7). I'd be curious to see how capable these other calibers I've mentioned would perform/compare against other current systems, any one of which could've offered more than any 105 but without as much added bulk and logistical burden of 155's. Perhaps improvements in mortar technology would allow longer tubes on 120mm's to reach ranges in excess of the 17km of L118/119 105mm types (and the comparably-ranged French LG1). When your artillery has greater range, you don't have to move it as often to cover a given area (or you can keep it operating in a smaller AO), and you have a better chance at out-ranging any CBF. The only probblem that's run into, though, is that the mortar most likely would need breech-loading capability, as troops would have difficulty muzzle-loading long tubes without depressing the barrel (even though modern fire control systems can quickly re-lay the gun tube to previous positions). The Russians already did it, in the form of the NONA mortar systems: link ...but I doubt Norway would adopt any Russian systems...especially with its nearer-neighbor Finland offering the very promising AMOS and NEMO systems (couple that to SAAB's developments in PGMMs).
 
Quote    Reply

Mechanic    RE:SP or Towed for Norway? Doggtag   8/21/2006 1:00:15 PM
"(my apologies for the sled dog/reindeer suggestion: the pic I saw was Finnish, not Norge.)" No dog/reindeer/horse/cow sleds in Finland either :) And add some respect when you talk about one of the biggest artillery nations in Europe: Country inventory includes (but limited to): 218 x 122 mm D-30 howitzer (H 63) 126 x 152 mm gun-howitzer D-20 (H55) 136 x 130 mm m/54 FG (K 54) 24 x 152 mm 2A36 gun 64 x 152 mm H 37 A GH 54 x 155 mm 155 GH 52 APU (very modern 52 cal towed gun. Range up to 39 km) 72 x 122 mm 2S1 SPH 18 x 152 mm 2S5 SPG 36 x 122 mm RM-70 MRS 24 x 122 mm BM-21 MRS 24 x AMOS twin 120 mm (more to be ordered?) up to 22 MLRS ordered, delivery 2007 +mortars, 81 mm KRH 71 Y 120 mm KRH 92
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:SP or Towed for Norway? Doggtag   8/21/2006 1:19:47 PM
Perhaps 120mm would be a workable caliber for artillery systems between 105 and 155mm in NATO nations? Of course, it is closer to 105mm, but it may well provide enough capacity to fit the new guidance systems of 155mm weapons. The main reason I mention 120mm though, is obviously because it is the NATO standard tank gun, and it would be useful if the current ammunition could be used. Given the proper guidance systems and elevation ability, is there any reason why a 120mm rifled(?) tank gun could not be used as an artillery gun?
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:SP or Towed for Norway?   8/23/2006 5:04:56 AM
Calibre only really becomes an issue if you want light artillery. 155mm with a roughly 45kg proj is at the upper limit for a one person lift on OH&S grounds. Therefore ypou don't really want a bigger calibre. However, the larger the calibre the greater the 'carrying power' of the shell (ie for a given MV the heaviest shell will go furthest). That said I'd agree there's a case to re-think the optimum calibre for light arty. Bigger gives better range and better cargo capacity, the price is a heavier carriage or a tradeoff with desirable features such as rapid wide traverse (best achieved with a platform, but reasonable with a sole plate) and possibly rate of fire (depending on round weight) and chamber size. The other problem with light arty is the need for carriage stability, mostly a function of trunnion height (and hence recoil length at large elevations) which is also influenced by barrel length/weight.
 
Quote    Reply

Sabre    RE:SP or Towed for Norway?   8/23/2006 11:11:00 AM
The other issue in deciding caliber, I would say, is the effects on target. Once upon a time, you wanted maximum effects on target with the first salvo - the subsequent salvos would find the enemy taking what cover they could (even lying prone can improve the chances of survival). So if a given target called for a Battery 3 (three rounds from each gun, 18, or 24 for an 8 gun battery, total), then from a pure effects standpoint, theoretically it would be preferrable to have a Battery 1 from tubes firing shells three times larger. (Basically... there are inaccuracies in there, but that is the basic idea...) 105mm shells are 15kg(ish) and 155mm are 45kg(ish) - um, I seem to recall that for 155mm 4 square was 95, and 103.5 lbs for the DPICM family, with fuze. Assuming that most targets call for multiple salvos (I think the JMEM's are classified...) a 155mm shell will rarely, if ever, be "overkill", at least compared to a 105mm. The times, they are a changin', though. Now the demand seems to be for the tiniest bit of explosive, precisely on the target. Before the advent of precision artillery shells, I would have argued for bigger guns - yes the ammunition is heavier, but the amount of steel that you have to put on a target is the same for a given target, the smaller guns just have to fire more times to accomplish that feat, so the logistical savings are minimal. One can argue about the relative suppressive effects of 155mm fire compared to triple the volume of 105mm fire (since both are the same mass /logistical load). The MRSI fire mission is also now technologically feasible for up to 6 rounds (if you are using S. African equipment). In my experience, targets were fleeting and I needed the biggest bang that I could get in the absolute shortest amount of time, so I voted for 155.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives    RE:SP or Towed for Norway?   8/23/2006 3:00:53 PM
I guess it depends what you want artillery for, suppression or destruction. For light and mobile, a lightweight rocket system (HIMARS, LIMAWS(R)) for long range, destructive fires combined with a light gun (L118) in 105mm for screening, defensive and suppressive fires. Perhaps a bit more range would be good for the 105mm, but you're after rate and low cost, and 20 miles or so range still covers a pretty large area.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       8/25/2006 8:50:08 PM

....But the only 105mm anywhere that can get near 20 miles (32km), is the S.Afrikan G7 LEO, and no one yet seems impressed enough with it to buy one!

...Would make for an interesting modern-day Abbot SP gun (benefit being it carries more rounds than a much more massive 155mm SP gun).

And like was previously mentioned: precision is becoming more favorable than overall blast coverage area: develop a decent 105mm arty PGM ("soft launch" it at lower velocities like those Russian 100mm ATGMs, but maybe rocket boost them for greater range) and you've got something.

 

Argument seems to suggest that 120mm mortars may often lack sufficient range.

And it was suggested about maybe using 120mm as a new artillery caliber since 120mm is NATO standard for tanks...except NATO-standard tank guns are smoothbore, like most mortars are  (only the Chally 1 & 2 have rifled guns, but recently a C2 was trialled with a Rheinmetall smoothie). And I think smoothbore actually may be more favorable for PGMs (less stress on the round because there's no friction to turn a driving band?): Israel's LAHAT and several other projects in the works are already giving us PGMs for 120mm guns... That US BLOS (Beyond Line Of Sight) round we want for the FCS would be an ideal closer-ranged (self defensive?) weapon for an SP gun (otherwise, you can get by with a mortar PGM, many of which have about the same 10-12 km range we anticipate for BLOS).

 

 

...Reason I suggest the S. Afrikan G7 LEO 105 as a fine SP gun: at 30km, it outranges any other tube artillery caliber up through 130mm (excluding 5" PGMs designed for naval guns), and most 122mm class rocket artillery.

But of course, that's with standard long range ammo: I imagine they will try and do VLAPs in 105 also, easily giving it better range than any 39-45 cal 155mm guns (40+km easily, if the 155 VLAP reached a record 75km). But without some type of guidance/control or course-correcting fuze, its accuracy would probably be haneous.
 
Quote    Reply

ambush       8/26/2006 11:32:01 AM

Does Norway need to defend Norway or is looking to equipng its forces for Peacekeeping missions elswhere?  Probably both.   From my own experience with its terrain I would recommend  a towed light 105mm-L119/M-119 and 120mm mortars (like Afghanistan extreme high angle fire would be needed in some of that terrain).  Granted a towed 155 would be nice but considering probable available lift assets with weight of gun and weight of ammuntion it could boil down to moving 155s with a few rounds of ammuntion or moving 105s and supplying them with a lot more ammuntion.  On the other end HIMARS and a Caesar type 155 preferably  something like an M777 mated to a HIMARS chasis. Both would provide a good amount of firepower and have great strategic mobility.
 
Quote    Reply

Guardsman 7207       9/6/2006 9:52:08 AM
The Swedish FH77 Archer is a very interesting concept, and although not exactly pretty, it looks robust and efficient. Could that be an alternative as a 155mm SP?

Archer picture

Note that the picture is of the prototype, the final version will also carry a remote-operated weapons station on top of the drivers cabin.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       9/6/2006 1:59:51 PM
Out of interest, why do people plump for the L119 rather than the longer-ranged L118?
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       9/6/2006 2:21:28 PM

Out of interest, why do people plump for the L119 rather than the longer-ranged L118?

Because most people are probably like me, and don't know the difference.

Off the top of my head I would (guess) the difference was the ammunition, with the L118 shooting surplus stock Abot ammunition while L119 having a chamber for new rounds.... but then I doubt I am correct!
 
Quote    Reply

Guardsman 7207    L119   9/6/2006 2:28:40 PM
L119 also has updated targeting systems, making it more accurate and inter-operable
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       9/6/2006 3:33:58 PM
Aha.

The L118 is the British Light Gun, as currently in service. It fires, IIRC, a British-specific round, which I'm pretty sure is separate-loading (charge and shell separate). It has a longer barrel than the L119/M119 and fires a 15 kg shell up to 17 km. It mounts an inertial positioning system for rapid and accurate sighting.

The M119 (it appears that the M119 has a few US-specific modifications) fires NATO standard ammunition out to 15km, although it can reach 19km with rocket-assisted ammunition.  The NATO standard ammunition is derived from the US WW2 era M1 howitzer, so that definately predates the Abbot ammo.

The L119 is, apparently, an L118 configured for NATO-standard ammunition, although I thought that it had a shorter barrel like the M119 too - can't find confirmation for that at the moment though.

If you're using a light gun for suppressive-effect missions, I would have thought that ammo as dumb (and therefore as cheap) as possible was the way to go.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer       9/6/2006 3:44:53 PM

L119 also has updated targeting systems, making it more accurate and inter-operable


Thats not quite correct, the M119 as its known in US service is still equipped with a Glass and Iron Optical fire Control System consisting of an M184 Mount (I believe) and an M137 Panoramic telescope (Pantel).  Now while this is a very good fire control system it relies on a human eye centering bubbles and lining up reticles with aiming points both to initially lay the weapon and to set deflection and quadrant on receipt of fire orders.  This can be a major source of error in the weapon system, regardless of how accurate and well aligned the actual equipment is.
 
The L118's in British service have by know all been fitted with a Digital Fire Control System called LINAPS, the heart of which is a combined Inertial Navigation and GPS unit.  This gives locational and pointing data for the tube to an accuracy of < 1 mils (When correctly aligned) and doesnt rely at all of the ancient and secret art of "Bubbleology". 
 
Ill take a digital equipped L118 over an optical equipped M119 any day of the week.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       9/6/2006 4:42:04 PM
Cool, so I wasn't toof ar out with my British specific ammunition guess.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  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