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
Carl S    RE:105mm or 155mm? Shaping the Battlefield/Neutralizer   10/3/2005 8:36:25 PM
" emerging network capability that allows timely multi-source data synergy" You are refering to the FDC system of the US Army artillery, and its British and French equivalents, developed in the 1920s? As you say the more things change .....
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:105mm or 155mm? Shaping the Battlefield/Neutralizer   10/4/2005 8:21:23 AM
My key point is that while in the past range was 'nice to have', enhancement of tgt acquisition capabilities is now making it much more important. Coupled with this is that the choice of possible tgts is also opening up, whereas in the past (ignoring SVN H&I and WW1)it has mostly been against HBs because they were the easiest to find. Effects based operations are also leading to greater emphasis against depth tgts. It's true that you can gain range by deploying forwards, and as the battlefield becomes less dense it's easier to do so. However, it's always less than an ideal solution, having the range is better and you can still raid forward to reach even deeper. Accuracy at long ranges started improving significantly with the introduction of the modified point mass model with short step integration on field computers, not to mention better met at higher altitudes. It should get better again with the introduction of battlefield met models that will provide data points more relevant to the longer and higher trajectories. I'm not sure that survey has improved greatly in accuracy but getting accurate survey started getting much faster with PADS. Consistency and accuracy to a lesser extent are improved by a MV rdr on every gun and will improve again with rd to rd MV prediction (which roughly halves the PEr). Automated laying also improves consistency. Of course guided projectiles also have great potential. Systematic exploitation of all source intelligence has always ben important, although I'm not sure that it's ever been a great strenght of FDCs, but perhaps I'm using that term to narrowly. However, the CB staffs from about 1917 onwards got quite good at it. The moden significance is that it's now realtime, no more 12 hrs or more turnaround from tasking air photos to getting results. This means that whereas in the past fixed targets were the main tgt option (after HBs), now tgts that move fairly frequently are a realistic propostion without too much inspired hope that they remained in the same place. I'm have serious doubts about the relevance of the traditional tac msns (DS, GS, R, GSR), they may have some relevance for assigning obsn and LOs, but as a means of controlling fire I am unconvinced. If the comd establishes effects priorities then it really doesn't matter which guns or lnchrs are used, providing they have appropraite ammo and can reach the tgt. It is basically a matter of the comd allocating resources and one of the resources is allotment authority over guns, which is changed as the tac sit evolves.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:105mm or 155mm? Shaping the Battlefield/Neutralizer   10/4/2005 10:22:28 PM
I'll go along with that. Particularly to point about range. The true tactical mobility of artillery is its range. The greater effective range the greater its real mobility. And, as N writes the largest hindrance to exploitation of this range has been target information. The ability to identify and locate large numbers of high value targets in a very short time and kill or nuetralize those targets imeadiately by the use of fires from all the artillery within thirty or fourty km seems a worthy goal. And, as soon as you can give me practical artillery with fifty or sixty km range I'll take that too, thank you.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:105mm or 155mm? Shaping the Battlefield/Neutralizer   10/4/2005 11:00:46 PM
My initial response to Neutralizer indicated my feelings about range in the first sentence. A few comments- 1.)PADS was revolutionary. Your correct. Battlefield survey was accurate as long as you had a known point in the vicinity. However, it was slow, though nice to know how to transfer direction as a cannoner. It was the speed that was so cool. 2. You may be correct with the trad. tac. msns. of the F.A. in that it becomes a resource allocation issue to some extent. However, DS fires remain paramount to manuever elements in offensive operations, and clearly when engaged, regardless of their posture. GSR/Reinf. fires lend emphasis to the commanders intent by virtue of the reinforced unit's tgt. list. As for mobility through fires, I'm not too certain. Unless your fires can suppress an opposing unit's counterfire on your position, you'd better displace. Since range is always desired, then mobility optimizes range, as you suggested. In truth, you really can't be field artillery without the abilities to move, shoot, and communicate. That ol' adage is as true as ever, and it's what makes F.A. such a valuable and unique asset to the manuever cdr.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    S-2, Carl S, Neutraliser, Thanks   10/5/2005 12:39:27 AM
for keeping the Arty section of this forum the most intelligent and educational part. It is a good thing that arty isnt considered cool or sexy enough for the popular masses, it keeps the idiots and trolls away from this section of the site.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:S-2, Carl S, Neutraliser, Thanks   10/5/2005 1:45:43 AM
Hey! Whatever it takes to be boring. Yer welcome. Now how bout that new MV test gear? Hot stuff eh?
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:S-2, Carl S, Neutraliser, Thanks   10/5/2005 3:14:42 AM
You talking about the M94? Havent seen it yet, but from reading about it the only thing it claims to be able to do over teh M90 is in determining Muzzle velocitys for Rocket assist and Base bleed Projos, Now from all the testing I have been involved in, for Rocket assist projectiles, Rocket On/Off times have much more impact that a few meters per second variation in MV. I thought the M90 did quite a sufficient Job, or are you talking about something else?
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:ArtyEngineer/Question on Basic Loads?   10/5/2005 7:10:32 AM
Hey, artyengineer! It sounds like you've spent a lot of recent time putting rounds downrange with some 155mm gun sections. How much of their basic load these days is composed of RAP/Base Bleed ammo, allowing for available stocks in theatre?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Shedding some light on range requirements   10/5/2005 7:53:20 AM
-"And, as soon as you can give me practical artillery with fifty or sixty km range I'll take that too, thank you. " http://www.army-technology.com/projects/g6/index.html "In September 2001, the G6 achieved a range of 53.6km using the new Velocity enhanced Long Range Projectile (V-LAP) and the new M64 bi-modular charge system. V-LAP combines base bleed and rocket motor technology, while the M64 charge system increases muzzle velocity to 910m/s VLAP is part of Denel’s new Assegai range of 155mm ammunition. The 155 mm main gun is equipped with a 45 calibre auto-frettaged barrel, a semi-automatic screw type breech and an electrical trigger mechanism. The gun is fitted with a single baffle open type muzzle brake and a reinforced epoxy resin fume extractor." ---------- Denel seems intent on hitting 70km (from 52-cal barrels) in future versions of the VLAP (if not already there now). Seems the UK already tested them in the AS90: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/as90/ "AS90 has also test fired the new Denel Assegai family of 155mm ammunition which has completed development and includes a Velocity Enhanced Long-range Artillery Projectile (VLAP)." --------- So if anyone can get accurate long range targetting to exploit the VLAP's range, I would think the UK could do it (especially when collaborating with US recce assets.) You want range, ask and ye shall receive. ArtyEngineer and Neutralizer, since you guys seem to be our resident experts in this area (giving credit where credit is due, no sarcasm intended), perhaps could you guys maybe enlighten us on why the US has abandoned (with the loss of Crusader) reasonably long ranged tube artillery, especially when so many others are pursuing it? Are we sold on relying solely on more-expensive assisted PGMs to get additional reach for our guns, solely as a weight-savings issue for the launcher, and then relying mostly on MLRS and air assets to reach more distant targets? I too am confused about, when so many others are trying to get to greater ranges, why is the US (Army) sold on procuring a system with an even shorter barrel (38-cal?) that barely gets 2/3 the range (unassisted) as almost everyone else's 45- and 52-cal tube artillery (including most of the people we foresee as future possible adversaries). I'm with Carl on this one: regardless of whether we (US) have superior target location and other capable assets to engage them, I'd rather WE have the capability to out-range our adversaries, rather than the other way around. Good thing no one else bought up Iraq's Al Fao concept, a 210mm Bull-inspired Iraqi development resembling the South African G6 Rhino: this beast could reach 57.34km with ERFB-BB shells (max elevation was 55 degrees). I'd wager a VLAP in this caliber would easily cross 70km now, with 80km possible eventually (greater than MLRS, I might add). A wheeled 6x6 vehicle topping in at about 48 metric tonnes, it wasn't much more than Crusader's physical dimensions: length oa: 15m width: 3.5m height: 3.6m max road speed: 90km/h elevation: 0 to +55 degrees traverse: 40 degrees left/right Things start getting that big, and the obvious choice for rocket systems becomes obvious (although, for the same amount of volume, you can have more than twice as many artillery shells in the same space in your resupply vehicles as opposed to much-longer-body-length artillery rockets. This could be a key factor in just how much artillery support you can give your forces, and as the US is learning, economy of war is a necessity. History shows that wars are often won by who has the biggest purse, not the largest sword.) One last thing: not being an engineer myself (didn't have the brainpower for higher math), what the heck does "auto-frettaged" mean when talking about barrel construction? I've seen this term all over, and online dictionaries aren't configured for a lot of specific engineering terms. So someone please define it for me?
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Shedding some light on range requirements   10/5/2005 8:25:16 AM
Can't speak specifically about crusader, but the 52 cal barrels seem to wear somewhat rapidly and there's a compatibility problem with shells (at least at top charge), new driving bands are needed. The other issue is more fundamental, standard ammo and standard ballistics. Countries like US and UK are very wary of putting themselves at the mercy of a foreign vendor who's primary purpose is to lock them in to a gun and ammo combination to which they own the IPR. The US is even more cautious than the Brits. All these odd non NATO standard guns and ammo just aren't going to cut the mustard. Even the Swedish Archer has a 52 cal barrel, but a 25 l chamber to enable it to fire heavier shells! US and UK seem to have concluded that for the moment they can get extra range thru extended range ammo with existing 39 cal barrels. You also have to consider shell lethality, cargo payload, and the move to insensitive munitions. When you factor these in some of the non NATO stuff doesn't look so hot. Remember, even the French have now come to the 'standard' party!
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics