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 to easily counterd ?
Sucari    10/11/2006 7:35:18 PM
For uses on an active-battlefeild is artilerary to easily counterd ? Milimeter radar can track incoming shells, and almsot imidiatly fire a rocket response as return fire, destroying the offending artilerary.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
Carl S       1/20/2007 9:11:37 AM
I thought I'd keep the questions in simple small packages.  Work thru the nuances bit by bit. : ) 

In the near term THEL type weapons are likely to be faced with either small numbers of projectiles per hr.  The harrasment scenario as conducted by Hammas last year.   Or a well planned massed mission from multiple batterys with lots of ammo.

Anyway, back to the question of how many rounds per minute THEL can handle at current levels of performance.

A second question I have is how long one can keep the THEL weapon powered up in standby with its capacitator charged? 

 
Quote    Reply

kensohaski       1/29/2007 9:17:34 AM
How quickly can towed arty be moved?  Against an advanced enemy ( like there are any left) towed arty would seem to be a problem?
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       1/29/2007 10:50:12 AM

How quickly can towed arty be moved?  Against an advanced enemy ( like there are any left) towed arty would seem to be a problem?

Thats a good point, anyone have any idea as to the propotion of towed artillery to self propelled artillery now in service and planned to be purchased as replacements?

I read in some previous posts that towed artillery will still be required, because they can be airlifed by helicopters to establish firebases as required. However the 105mm airborne deployable howitzer is becoming rarer as it is replace by motars of up to ???120mm mm motars. Which itself can become mobile when chucked in a M113.

 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       1/29/2007 8:16:16 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       1/29/2007 8:20:41 PM
Damm, ten minutes work on a post & nothing to show but a blank.  Whoever is responsible for this site needs to be fired.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       1/29/2007 8:26:09 PM
"How quickly can towed arty be moved?  Against an advanced enemy ( like there are any left) towed arty would seem to be a problem?"
 
To sum up my missing post:  It only a problem to the crews that are unfortunate enough to get caught in the CB fire.  In the grand scheme of things there are larger problems elsewhere.

I've been picking thru Wehrmacht examples & have found they seldom bothered to run from CB fires.  Hunkering down in trenches & bunkers was better.  

 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       1/30/2007 4:23:29 AM
Its not a good idea to vacate a position when shells are falling on it.  The time to move to an alterate position is either when fire is being adjusted or when it stops and before it returns. 
 
The time a battery needs to depart depends on how much notice they have to 'prepare to move', what can take the rime is re-packing ammo so that it can be loaded on trucks.  Once this is completed then the guns can be out of action and on their way in a couple of minutes.  These days, with sighting systems like APS they can also be in action and ready to fire in the same sort of time, probably held up by the time needed to enter their coords into the battery computer, unless there is a data link from APS to battery computer.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    Displacing Howitzers   1/30/2007 7:22:52 AM
We used to rehearse an emergency or "Hasty Displacement".  With 105mm howitzers the guns & key fire direction/comm could be on the road in a couple of minutes.  The eight ton M198 howitzers required five or more to close trails, hook up & roll out of the battery position.  In Desert Storm the Iraqis occasionally got in a CB attack.  their methodical adjustment technique allowed the essential equipment & battery crew to clear the target area.  One of my Sgts described it:  ...we were fivehundered meters down the road (with M198) when the fire for effect hit, and from the trucks watched our backpacks & gear getting blown up.

The Iraqis used an old adjustment technique with adjusting shots both over & short of the target for range & right & left for direction.  Even under the best of circumstances this takes eight plus minutes.  A second Lt FO not long out of school is hard pressed to accomplish this method in fifteen minutes.  In another case a repair team had time to complete a tire change & move two kilometers before the Iraqi adjustment was complete FFE hit. The bn XO estimated 10-12 minutes between adjusting rounds.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       1/30/2007 2:31:35 PM
The question is the competence and equipment of the enemy. For most of the enemies we are looking at in the next few years, infiltrating infantry, car bombs, snipers, and whatnot are a bigger threat than counterbattery fire. What sporadic harassment with rockets and mortars such enemies can throw at our artillery forces can probably be handled by THEL just fine.
 
That said, projecting the current situation indefinitely into the future is a good way to run into problems of the sort we have faced too often in the past of be caught with our pants down in terms of military preparedness. The problem with the example from WWII is that most the Germany's war was on the Eastern front and the Soviets didn't have the kind of technical proficiency to get the most out of their artillery. Most Soviet artillery fire was direct fire, and what indirect fire was called was adjusted, giving plenty of time to reach cover. Once the troops are in trences and foxholes, conventional artillery isn't very effective. Time on target fires make artillery a lot more effective when it can be used, but only British and American troops used such techniques.
 
On the modern battlefield things are a lot different. Any skilled enemy is going to use TOTs and in many cases they will be using guns capable of landing multiple rounds on a target simultaneously giving even more weight to the first round effects. ICM is quite deadly even if troops are in foxholes. DPICM includes a shaped charge as well as fragmentation effects, and which is effective even against foxholes with overhead cover and against armored vehicles. In the 91 gulf war, Coalition counterbattery fire almost always used ICM, generally fired by the MLRS. There is no reason to assume a capable enemy would do otherwise.
 
I am operating under the assumption that "shoot and scoot" does not mean displacing under fire but rather firing a given number of rounds and then moving. Of course this may depend on the weapon system involved, and the level of training of the units. My National Guard FA unit never trained to displace except under attack or a planned move when we had M109A5s. But A5s took forever to emplace, especially with training safety. After the move to M109A6 Paladins our leadership was trained to evaluate the risk of counterbattery, ground attack, or airborne threats being directed against our guns and to issue orders for the guns to displace after a certain period of time. Also it should be noted that with the A5s our entire battery was massed in an area of about 400-600m by 200-400 m depending on terrain, so counterbattery would have been a lot more effective than with the A6 where pairs or trios of guns would operate independently over a wide area. The pairing or trippling up was for mutual defense against ground threats, and the individual guns in a pair or trio would generally be a few hundred meters apart, with their FAASVs (ammo and supply vehicles) normally a few hundred meters away as well. Close enough to engage enemies on the ground with crew-served weapons but spreading out to reduce the effects of artillery or air attack.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       1/30/2007 6:57:40 PM
True tha historical record must be taken carefully.

"The problem with the example from WWII is that most the Germany's war was on the Eastern front and the Soviets didn't have the kind of technical proficiency to get the most out of their artillery. Most Soviet artillery fire was direct fire, and what indirect fire was called was adjusted, giving plenty of time to reach cover."

Picking thru the German & Soviet descriptions it is apparent the Soviet artillery varied widely in different years, and according to the type artillery unit.  I've put aside the commonly used sources from the German writers of 1945 - mid 1960s, looking over much more recent material from artillery crew & officers.  It is clear the 'classic' view is not quite the whole story.

" Time on target fires make artillery a lot more effective when it can be used, but only British and American troops used such techniques."

I'm starting to suspect the Soviet 'army artillery brigades' were proficient at their own version of this technique, as well as other state of the art tactics.  There seems to have been a large difference in skill between the army & front artillery units & those of the rifle divsions.
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics