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: Mounted Artillery
asv2003    3/24/2004 10:55:39 AM
What are the advantages that mounted artillery like the Caesar has over SP arty?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Horsesoldier    RE:Mounted Artillery   3/24/2004 1:43:19 PM
lighter weight, and cheaper, I assume.
 
Quote    Reply

Mark F    RE:Mounted Artillery   3/24/2004 2:50:38 PM
Obviously a wheel SP gun such as Ceasar is going to have significant up front (procurement) and lifecycle cost advantages over a traditional tracked SP gun. It may also be more strategically mobile (air portable or capable of long road marches). The downsides are limited/no protection, less tactical mobility and restricted firing arcs (depression over the cab).
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:Mounted Artillery   3/26/2004 3:13:24 AM
Dont forget recoil wear and tear and problems with continuous firing, most of the mounted systems like Caeser tend to have less lifespans before major maintenance needs than traditional tracked SP systems.
 
Quote    Reply

asv2003    RE:Mounted Artillery   3/26/2004 3:31:26 AM
But Hybrid, does this mean that in the long run a wheeled SP like Ceasar will be costlier than a traditional SP. To my mind another big advantage the Ceasar would have is its turning radius which would enable it being used in difficult terrains like the mountains. Isnt it?
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:Mounted Artillery   3/27/2004 5:05:55 AM
Potentially it could be, it really depends on numbers of systems bought, a nation/military's logistics train and maintenance capabilities as well as the fire missions it will most likely face. I'll admit I haven't done much research on the Caeser system as far as its rate of fire over long periods of time goes but everything I've read about mounting howitzer systems on light chassis has said that the recoil issues cause major problems with both the chassis and the gun itself. Now the reason it all comes down to numbers is because if you have a large enough logistics and maintenance train as well as enough units to deploy, the cost to maintain and deploy these units shrinks. Fire missions and also tactical mobility also play a role, you're going to end up having a bit better mobility on the ground that towed howitzers, but less I believe than tracked SPH systems (remember about ground PSI and footprint). Same argument for Rate of Fire, less than SPH systems because of recoil capabilties; fire control systems also would not be as extensive usually. As far as turning radius, um, lets virtually take a any tracked system..it can turn inside its own length usually, the big advantage Caeser has its own initial cost and potential movement rate on ground that is relatively flat. Harsh terrain would actually be better for a tracked SPH. Other than those gripes, I'm actually in favor of the Caeser being tested out to see how it fares compared to a system like the XM777 howitzer.
 
Quote    Reply

Korpen    RE:Mounted Artillery, Re: hybrid     4/9/2004 8:39:23 AM
The number of systems are not so importand for mounted guns such as Fh-77BD och Caeser as the chassis and most of the gun is made form "civilian" components, so you have several thousands of civilian trucks and veichels that uses the smae components, this unlike tracked systems were everything is more or less resticted to one system. This leads to MUCH lower costs for spare parts, and easier access to spares. The only are were mounted guns have worse sighths then traced would be over open sights.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics