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: 105mm or 155mm for Medium Brigades
Maple Leaf    8/6/2003 3:31:30 PM
My question is should the SBCT have a 105mm or 155mm gun. I look at the Canadian brigades that presently deploy the French LG1 105mm towed gun with their LAV-III equipped manoeuvre forces. Now Canada does it because of the cost of buying a 155mm gun, but maybe there is an advantage to the 105mm gun. I heard the arguement that the 105mm gun is more suited for the peace support operations of the 21st Century, because the small shell causes less collateral damage while still providing accurate and deadly fire. That is a good point. I'm wonder what others think about this. Would forces engaged in peace support operations like Somalia, Bosnia and now Liberia, be more likely to use artillery if there was less likelyhood of damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure? I look at past peace support operations, and 105's have deployed more often than the 155's. The US deployed 105's to Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo (guns stayed in Macedonia and never actually went into Kosovo) and of course with the 82nd and 101st in both Gulf Wars. The Canadian, British and French have deployed 105mm guns to Bosnia since back in the mid-1990's with UNPROFOR, I-FOR and S-FOR. And the British sent two regiments to support its Royal Marine brigade and its air assault brigade during 'Iraqi Freedom' Both the towed 105mm and 155mm can be carried on a tilt-bed truck as see with the M777 at So, 105mm or 155mm?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
doggtag    RE:105mm or 155mm?   9/24/2005 5:26:41 PM
-"Meanwhile Aust is officially seeking reduced effect 155mm as well as new HE." Has anyone considered a sub-caliber round for 155mm guns? Doesn't the US have (or under development) a tank gun-fired APDS-type sub-caliber HEAT round useful for extended ranges? Why not develop a sub-caliber carrier round (HE filler or whatever) that can enjoy a somewhat greater range and a reduced payload? We should easily be able to incorporate a guidance system into it, or else what's the use of sending long-range, smaller yield rounds any distance downrange if their CEP is larger than the shell's effective burst range? But then again, here we run into the issue of cost: we may be more favorably served by a guided rocket/missile than a costly guided artillery shell. DARPA contracted with BAe to develop a guided 60mm mortar round (ODAM). Some here have argued that its possibly-reduced warhead may negate its effectiveness. Maybe a few artillery shell and PGM-producing defence contractors need to flex their ingenuity muscles and spend a little of their R&D money on making more PGMs smaller than 120mm mortar shells. Hell, if the Russians can do it with their 115mm gun, and the US had the STAFF round for M68 105mm guns, surely someone out there should be able to develop a 105mm guided arty round with a useful-enough payload and a decent range. If the Italians can do it for their 76mm naval gun, why can't anyone else? Seems to me that if someone came on the market with a 105mm PGM that could impact in a 5-10m CEP, and had a few km extra range over standard 105mm arty shells (say 20-25km overall), a lot of people would be scrambling to buy it up. Could even be a competitor to many 120mm mortar PGMs, especially if its cheaper.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:105mm or 155mm?   9/24/2005 9:10:28 PM
Waht was the STAFF round & M68?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:105mm or 155mm?   9/24/2005 10:55:05 PM
Carl, OK, my bad...I was certain STAFF was a 105mm weapon, but it's 120mm. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m943.htm The M68 series is the US equivalent of the British Army's 105mm L7 gun. Lying around my mess of a library somewhere is an old ARMOR magazine or Jane's Defence Weekly (maybe Jane's Armour & Artillery Upgrades, even) from the mid-1990s talking about Russian developments of their gun-fired guided anti-tank rounds. From what I recall, they briefly tried to develop one for the 85mm gun, but with the withdrawing of ASU-85s from most units, it was never produced in quantity (to the best of my knowledge.) As of the mid-to-late-1990s, they do have the laser-seeker 9M117 Bastion (AT-10 "Stabber"), capable of being fired from T55s' 100mm guns, and a derivative called 9K116 Basnya that is fired from the BMP-3's 2A70 gun, with the Kastet round being a slight modification that is fired from towed 100mm guns. But these were designed with a maximum range of only about 5km (anti-tank, but would work against fixed positions quite well), not the most ideal for long-range artillery work. Still, -"Alliant Techsystems developed the STAFF round. Proof of principle was demonstrated in 1990." If we had the tech to do that in 1990, certainly the last 15 years of electronics evolution have given us the ability to shrink it down even smaller (guidance and control). We've been firing 70mm MANPADS (Redeye, Stinger) for the last few decades, had 155mm and 127mm laser-guided shells since the 1980s, and even the 81mm MERLIN mortar PGM (millimetric guidance). Surely a 105mm artillery PGM is not out of the question. I don't think it's so much that no one sees any value in such a projectile. I think it's more the fact that no one has offered one yet (meaning, no one has any idea just what level of capabilities such a munition would offer). If we're going to keep 105mm weapons around longer, we might as well exploit technology and make the weapon as formidable as we can.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:105mm or 155mm? - doggtag   9/24/2005 11:09:55 PM
I don't think it's so much that no one sees any value in such a projectile. I think it's more the fact that no one has offered one yet (meaning, no one has any idea just what level of capabilities such a munition would offer). - Doggtag The way us defence contrator types work is to wait for an Operational Requirement Document to be produced by someones military before we go down the route of spending considerable R&D money. Shareholders tend not to like that type of project ;)
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:105mm or 155mm? - doggtag/Seantheaussie retort   10/1/2005 10:46:44 PM
"...1. Don't forget MLRS which cancels out all 155mm range/guided advantages. 2. Any competent enemy will grab/hug? the belt of US troops to avoid US's massive fire support advantage & 105mm can be aimed closer to friendlies." Does MLRS offer an effect like the old M107 HE projo? My recollection of artillery/rocket ammunition seems that payload on the rockets was all DPICM. I want blast effect from HE in many situations. Equally, there are numerous situations where the use of DPICM just isn't a cool idea, particularly delivered by rocketfire from 20-40kms elsewhere. Meanwhile I lose the excellent illumination offered by 155mm systems, as well as the air-burst effect from shell/fuze combos unavailable to MLRS. Range? I don't believe it's an absolutely critical criterion for a 155mm system. When I hear range, I think "counterfire", which is what MLRS was designed for, btw. Our 155mm systems have ALWAYS been the shortest shooters worldwide (well, at least since the M114 series at the end of W.W.II). In some ways, thank goodness. Marginal range on many of our systems has, surprisingly, had much to do with the continuation of a long history of excellent American artillery doctrine. There are certainly many instances where "competent enemy" have tried to grab and hold. Equally, there are many of those instances where they failed, competent or not. I mean, that's sort of the game, isn't it? The question to attacking infantry always is, do you really want to? As an artillery man, I don't always object to placing FPF (final protective fires) targets out 200m+ (danger close)from the MLR. U.S. infantry are traditionally quite well armed w/mortars and numerous automatic wpns., which makes it most uncomfortable for any "competent force" to have a continuous fire 155mm M107HE barrage being fired behind him, as he "hugs" our engaged forces. It sort of makes his committment to the attack irrevocable, thus they MUST overrun our troops or be annihilated. Certainly, heavy groundcover that allows an unobserved approach into a defensive position or to its perimeter is always a dangerous environment for defending infantry, such as Vietnam. Generally, though, forward observers were able to adjust and register their FPFs prior to engagement. That was one of the very first requirements of Company/platoon cdrs, and F.Os upon occupying a night laager, for instance. Give me a lightweight (15,000 lbs. artyengineer?)155mm towed How, 30km range with chg. 9, and my full complement of shell/fuze combinations. That will be fine for our light/medium forces for the next 10-15 years. If they start shooting back with something big, somebody better be shipping S.P. howitzers, 'cause it ain't a "light fight" any longer.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:105mm or 155mm? - S-2   10/2/2005 9:09:54 AM
Give me a lightweight (15,000 lbs. artyengineer?)155mm towed How, 30km range with chg. 9, and my full complement of shell/fuze combinations. That will be fine for our light/medium forces for the next 10-15 years. - S-2 No Problem, could do that for not much heavier than the M777 at 9300lbs. Putting a 52 cal tube in was on the drawing boards very early on but then the weight was capped at 9800lbs for teh MV 22 lift requirement we neglected it, however a lot of computer analysis of the structure and recoil system done based on the loads from a 52 cal tube firing MACS zone 6 (Which nolonger exists with the demise of crusader)
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:105mm or 155mm for Medium Brigades   10/2/2005 9:54:01 PM
Yeah, my "very bad". My dream direct support howitzer is basically the M198, which is too heavy, as is its prime mover. It also lacks about six thousand meters of range at max charge without RAP.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:105mm or 155mm for Medium Brigades - S-2   10/3/2005 1:12:47 AM
This is really sad I know, there are better ways to spend a Sunday afternoon, but based on your question I fired up Pro E and Ansys and did some design and FEA stuff based around the M777 configuration. If I had some titanium blanks, a machince shop and a good machinist I could integrate a crusader tube into the m777 within the week. Couldnt fire MACS zone 6 however, and there is no way the M100 series glass and iron sights would survive the G loads. But it just so happens I have a TALIN HG inertial navigatio unit and associated dispalys for Guner, A gunner and Section Chief. If you got some cash to spare you can have your howitzer ;) By the way, why hvae the Marine Corp gone to that Monster Truck of the MTVR as the prime mover for teh M198, total overkill, and from what I hear because that truck can go over more that the M900 series the Arty guys seem to think they can take their M198's over more severe terrain to the extreme detriment of their howitzers.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:105mm or 155mm?   10/3/2005 3:51:06 AM
I'd agree that the importance of range has been overstated, popular media guff about 'being outranged by en arty' was never a serious problem in the 20th century. A few km either way really made no difference in a CB battle, not least because effective CB meant concentrating several batteries onto one HB, it wasn't a 'one on one' affair. However, this obscures a few points. During the 20th C tgt acquisition was limited in range/timeliness (and really only located en arty), add to this accuracy and consistency falls off at long range and there were seldom if ever enough guns for massed fire power at long range. This means that long range really only mattered when the battlefield was particularly spacious and/or there was a need to concentrate fire from many batteries when you didn't have a large number. The great leap forward has been tgt acquisition and the emerging network capability that allows timely multi-source data synergy. This is opening up the depth battle for a far wider variety of arty tgts. For example in 2003 a UK 105mm DS bty attacked a corps HQ! And why not, the key elm of 'DS' is the provision of obs & LOs, given effective control arrangements guns should to engage anything within range iaw comd's intent. All this means that range is becoming important. Added to this improvements in accuracy and consistency of dumb shells (better computation and data, MV prediction) and the less dumb (at a price) that makes long range fire a better proposition by reducing the number of rounds to achieve a particular level of effect. Fighting an effective depth battle takes an immense load of the close combat forces. MRLs are superb for delivering a heavy load in a short time. Problem is they have a long minumum range, are constrained in mountains, have a low rate of fire (eg at least several minutes between lnchr loads, more if they have to displace each time), are significantly inaccurate (very susceptable to low level wind at launch, although this is fixable) and inconsistent, and then for current bomblets there's the UXB issue. The last few mean collateral damage is an issue that can turn into a legal problem. However, guided rockets solve some of these difficulties and make MRLs much more useable. Nevertheless, for the forseeable future a mix of guns and MRLs is needed to compliment each other, with a mix of ammo types. Some targets are going to need munitions that rely a probability spread because not every target and effect can be defined as a point target for destruction. However, range does now matter so that arty can impose their comd's will on the en that can now be acquired in depth, and the depth battle will shape the close battle.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:105mm or 155mm? Shaping the Battlefield/Neutralizer   10/3/2005 8:22:58 AM
"... that can now be acquired in depth, and the depth battle will shape the close battle." I hardly disagree, in that range can only enhance our present, tremendous capability. However, my emphasis is on artillery that is sufficiently mobile to fight within the full range of the battlefield, displacing when necessary in response to the changes of a fluid battle environment. Our targeting and survey capabilities, coupled with reliable battlefield metro have largely eliminated the need to register fires (wastes rounds), or to adjust fires to targets. "Fire For Effect" missions are the routine at battery level. Most bn. massed missions, or higher, are invariably TOTs, as the conditions that allow a battery to avoid adjusting fires are the same at the DIVARTY/CORPSARTY level. Thus, we mass all the time. Our physical and electronic agility in a high intensity environment mitigates strongly against a paramount criteria for range. We've routinely trained to perform artillery raids on deep tgts., largely a coordination measures exercise at this point with the manuever screws, but these missions serve as excellent examples why our agility leads to the economical, focused, discrete fires that we know can be so devastating now. Your example of a U.K. 105mm btry. attacking a corps H.Q. shows that range was less important than timely and accurate targeting, and the rapid transmission of the call for fire. With that, a 105mm btry. negates a corps H.Q., and all the associated downstream C3I dislocation for the attacked unit. Your correct on the continuing need for a robust mix of cannon and rocket/missle fires. In some respects, MLRS is a godsend. On most battlefields, it's ability when coupled with AN/TPSQ-36/37 FireFinder to almost singlehandedly fight the counterfire battle is stunning. Most of this massing fires stuff falls back to the four traditional missions of American field artillery fires, 1.) Direct Support 2.) General Support 3.) General Support/Reinforcing 4.) Reinforcing As you know, the artillery cdr. fights his battle based upon a incredible range of variables and critical imput, most importantly his commander's intent. The deep and close battles are now one and the same, in many respects, with artillery forces routinely deploying both into, and out of the Covering Force Area and Main Battle Area. Regardless of weapon ranges, units not possessing the requisite agility, target acquisition, battlefield survey/metro, and professionalism will not survive long. Very cool moniker, by the way. Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics