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: Counterbattery fire
asv2003    8/28/2003 9:09:07 AM
Well we all know that the max casualties that can be caused during war are due hostile shelling. So there is no doubt that the counter battery fires should form a very important part of any of the Armies philosophy. What do you guys feel about it?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
shek    RE:Counterbattery fire   4/10/2005 10:32:15 AM
The artillery is towed due to keeping the weight down for slingloading, heavy drops, and to keep a common platform for towing (HMMWV or MTV). While it doesn't have the capability to shoot and move as fast as SP artillery such as the Paladin, if a counterbattery threat is there, they will shoot and move to avoid the counterfires just as a SP artillery unit would.
 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral    RE:Shoot and move Vs Counterbattery fire   4/11/2005 5:47:19 AM
Given the almost instantaneous counterbattery fire response now possible, isn't shoot and move out of date? To have a good chance of survival, against modern artillery systems, you would have to be shooting ON the move (or just pausing maybe). I would expect that M777 will need a stablising mount on a FRES platform and whatever the US come up with when they realise that they have been ripped over Stryker. Do you think that an M777 could be fired from something as small as a Viking ATV?
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Shoot and move Vs Counterbattery fire   4/11/2005 1:51:41 PM
Big guns will not become obsolete simply because other big guns can destroy them when they have given their location away. What if the enemy has no big guns in range to give the counter battery fire? What if your aircraft destroy the enemies guns? To see how valuable heli-borne guns can be, just look at the Falklands War.
 
Quote    Reply

Massive    RE:Shoot and move Vs Counterbattery fire - Yimmy   4/11/2005 2:03:14 PM
True. But they sure would have loved to have an SP battery of 155mm if they could have got it there!
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Shoot and move Vs Counterbattery fire - Yimmy   4/12/2005 6:00:54 AM
SP 155mm would have conferred no significant benefits to the Brits in the FI. Argentine had towed 155mm. A bty of FH70, even a reduced one of 4 guns would have been useful for range and lethality but self-evidently not essential. The real arty weakness for Brits in FI was that they didn't have MRF in service in 1982 and carried far too little VT. Now if 155mm HE L15 fuzed L116 had been available then the campaign would have been over quicker, with less Brit and a lot more Arg casualties. 105mm L118 more than held its own against 122mm, 130mm and 152mm in 2003, mainly because UK target acquisition (radars, ASP, and UAVs) gave them information superiority. Moving guns isn't the solution either, Brits are citing the Iraqi 130mm bty episode as a case study - firing located by MAMBA, bty moved and was tracked by RN SK7 (this is supposed to be overwater AEW!), handed over to army UAV, eventually engaged by aircraft when it reach destination.
 
Quote    Reply

Massive    RE:Shoot and move Vs Counterbattery fire - Neut   4/12/2005 8:43:43 AM
Would have been very handy at Goose Green. The surge rate of fire and sheer weight of shell would have been a huge assistance and would probably have reduced casualties - particular when NGS was lost. Given the lack of helicopter lift SP 155mm would have freed up a lot of helicopters.
 
Quote    Reply

IsoT    RE:Shoot and move Vs Counterbattery fire    4/12/2005 12:39:35 PM
Id say "depends" It is indeed dangerous to give away your position, but think when you most need artillery fire AIther you are assaulitng and needisn support, or enemy is assalting and you need defensive support. Alla in all there is a load of ordnance airborne during firing all the time, and every body is giving away positions. Of vource MLRS type pieces have an advantage, as they can get a good saturation quickly, but even they are in danger of gettin counter battery fire upon them. All SP pieces ahve the advantage of scooting, but even "ordinary" towed pieces can be mnmde harder to wipe out. You need shelters for the crew really. The oiece itself is steel, so shrapnell don't damage it too much. Quite on the contrary to the crew...
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Shoot and move Vs Counterbattery fire    4/13/2005 6:07:57 AM
Its a popular fallacy that if you have SPs you have tactical mobility. FI terrain would have limited SPs to the few roads and tracks (the Brit Army is very experienced with FI type terrain because several of the artillery firing areas in UK are very similar), and there's still the problem of all the other vehicles, not least the ammo carriers. The only track vehs that could cross FI were the low ground pressure Scimitar type and the BV206s. Historically it is absolutely true that towed guns are very difficult to destroy by CB. The fighting at Boulougne in 1944 demonstrated that. In some ways very light modern towed guns are a bit more vulnerable than the old designs.
 
Quote    Reply

Texastillidie    RE:Shoot and move Vs Counterbattery fire - Yimmy   4/13/2005 8:13:35 AM
Yimmy How does the RN SK7 work?
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Shoot and move Vs Counterbattery fire - Yimmy   4/13/2005 8:45:55 AM
No idea what SK7 is. I think he may have been refering to our early warning Sea Kings, with the large radar.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics