I've talked to a buddy of mine who was an artilleryman about 12-15 years ago. He stated that the M119 was an artilleryman's nightmare and they hated the thing. He said it was unreliable and you had to take the wheels off to emplace the thing. Is this true? If so, why would they want to make more of them?

Dogtag If you look at the trucks the heavier weapons were "bolted to" you would see that they were structurely reinforced. Its one thing to throw a 20mm flak in the bed of your 5 ton, quite another with a 105mm. Counterbattery is the most overrated fear that there is. Won't bore you now but if you wish I can go into it. A towed artillery piece can march order in 2-3 min. Not much difference than a SP unless the SP hasn't offloaded anything to the ground and doesnt care about leaving the cammo net. " If you have even investigated anything on the MOBAT, you would see that the only requirements for it to get into firing position is to lower its stabilizing jacks (like a crane or backhoe)" In hard stable soil. How much of a slope can it be fired from especially since it has a 6400 mil capability.(another catch phrase for non arty types, all howitzers can shoot 6400 mils, just because you can traverse doesnt mean you can fire accurately). The US has GPS fire control for towed howitzers. It is a PIP for the 198 if we want it. No real need IMO. " No manhandling into position whatsoever. And with the fold-down decking of the MOBAT, there is sufficient area for the crew to tend the gun WITHOUT any fears of falling off." Where is the ammo storage? What about limited depression over the cab? where are the close in aimming points (Collimator) And have you seen the muzzle blast on that thing? It also looks as if the front stabilizer doesn't doo anything as the front tires are dug into the ground. Can't be good on the suspension. " As for your argument about the MOBAT breaking down, how is that any different from one of your prime movers breaking down ? (which most likely, is hauling the gun's ammo and crew stores.)" Because I can hook that M-119 to any open tow pentle and the gun truck does not carry the guns ammo. My crew can take their packs and the ammo box with fuze wrenches with them. " And such a "light" gun CAN be configured, easily, to be a "bolt-on, bolt-off" system, providing the chassis proves its able to withstand the gun stresses: I mentioned it was no different that what was done to create HIMARS, or for that matter, how is it any different from mounting/carrying several hundred pounds of TOW launcher and missiles on Humvees? The system CAN be removed/installed on the truck with a truck-mounted crane (the MHE): you don't need a HEMTT. " Gee let me see, whats the recoil on a MLRS (HIMARS) rocket? None. What recoil forces are transmitted from the TOW Rocket to a Hummer? None! Don't have the figures off hand for a 105mm howitzer but the recoil forces on a 127mm naval cannon (5"/54) is 10 thous Megajoules. Big difference. Army artillery groups surely have some operational requirement and equipment differences than the USMC.. Equipment differences yes, operational differences no. I taught both enlisted and officers (Army and Marine) at Sill. (91-94)No difference. Marines just do it better :) Can you helo lift the MOBAT with a UH-60/CH-46? No but I can lift the 119 and a Hummer with one. And I'll bet the 119/hummer combo takes up less deck space on a plane. I know it saves weight. Technoid 119s not a POS but it wasn't really something the US wanted to buy. Part of the "International" MLRS deals with the Brits. The wheel thing isn't as bad as it sounds. If I remember correctly the firing mech has 80 odd parts. Compared to a M101 (The perfect arty piece, none better) that had 5. I'd rather spin trails, takes 1 person per trail if you put the tube at the right quadrant, than trying to level the truck.

Points well taken, Sam. But ultimately, it's what the DoD and Army decide they want to do with it, not us..

"Don't have the figures off hand for a 105mm howitzer but the recoil forces on a 127mm naval cannon (5"/54) is 10 thous Megajoules. Big difference." I think ya got a few extra zeros in there accidently. If we follow the laws of conversation of energy then the recoil energy must have approximately the same energy as the muzzle energy correct? Then 10 gigajoules (10 thousand megajoules) would also be imparted to the shell, so you're saying a 5inch shell imparts enough to roughly equal 2.4 tons of TNT. I think the actual number you're looking for is 10 megajoules.

I stand corrected. Trying to do 2 things at once. It should be 10 Megajoules. But the idea of standard truckbed withstanding that force still is relevent.

A 105mm howitzer firing 30-40 pound shells at low-to-medium velocities has no where near the muzzle energy of a 127mm naval gun firing 70-odd pound shells at higher pressures and velocities. Try a little more math, you'll see. It's not like I'm proposing the US make a knock-off Caeser on a 6x6 FMTV with the XM777 UltraLightweight 155mm howitzer or anything... Actually, a 105mm howitzer would probably only generate marginally stronger recoil forces than a 120mm mortar firing at full charge (the difference being, most mortars funnel ALL the recoil down into the mounting, unless it has one of the newer recoiling mechanism, which the 105mm already has, to absorb some of the recoil in lateral movement.) When designing tank guns, there is a "power curve", which determines, for a given gun, how the recoil stroke can be varied depending on the requirements of the hull. In example, the Rh 105mm gun family comes in several variants with different recoil lenghts, depending on the weight/strength of the hull/turret it's mounted with to absorb the recoil stresses: Rh 105-60, wt 1320kg, recoils @ 600kN over 280mm distance, but the Rh 105-11 weighs in at 1380kg, with a 110kN recoil stress @ a recoil distance of 925mm. So varying the recoil length allows the gun to be fired from different chassis: a longer recoil stroke allows mounting on a lighter platform, because the gun itself is running out its own recoil stresses more, as opposed to a shorter-recoiling ordnance like in an MBT, which has sufficient weight and strength to absorb the heavier stress of a shorter recoil blow. The same principle is used in artillery, also: watch an M109 series SP gun fire: the gun recoils a considerable length as opposed to an Abrams tank, because the lighter hull of the Paladin must "draw out" the recoil in a longer run to handle it. So technically, there's little reason a truck-mounted system won't work: that's the idea behind SP gun trucks like Caeser and MOBAT: they have a longer recoil stroke to more easily handle the guns firing the same ammo as tracked (and considerably heavier) SP guns..

Trucks should level automatically. Civilian RV's have been doing so for at least 20 years.

I agree, wagner. Most modern construction cranes on 4 wheel chassis have built-in leveling systems to stabilize the lifting platform to a "zero profile" to maximize lifting safety. Actually, the current level of computer control/support technologies being built into the current field of heavy equipment needs to be seen to believed. Certainly, a computerized (with manual back-up) stabilization system can be incorporated into military wheeled firing platforms. Besides, that's really only one more small task for the computers of an FMTV to handle (the intergrated Driver 3000 and its variants provides an interactive troubleshooting electronic tech manual, as well as future connectability to the "battlefield Internet" the Army is pursuing. A Future Feasibility Study when the Crusader SPG was still in the works was a concept of "automated fire support element": with the level of automation in the Crusader (and could be intergrated into future artillery systems), it was suggested that a single Fire Direction Control contigent (at one time, a "platoon" was drwan up to include 4 guns, 2 ammo resuppliers, an FDC center, and 12-15 crew altogether), which basically was the Nintendo of artillery systems: a skeleton crew to drive and maintain gun ops, but basically, the guns, being automated, little more than received input from the FDC on target bearing. Then the automatic systems in the guns, in full "robot mode", carried out the fire mission. It was one more concept under investigation for the Army After Next ideas, and certainly has potential to be further integrated. The MLRS, and to a point, HIMARS, also offers the ability that the crews never leave the vehicle for a fire mission. And future US SP guns are pursuing the 3-, or even 2-, man crewed platform, where the gun system is fully automated, the crew sitting in the forward hull and computer controlling the entire engagement. Fitting out a truck with a magazine, like on the Swedish Bandkanon 1A 155mm gun, could afford a lightweight "shoot n scoot" platform, fitted out with a 105mm weapon and 12-20 round clip, which would need less ammo storage space than a full-up, tracked, turreted SP gun. All that would be needed would be a reloading system similar to the "clip" of rockets for the MLRS and HIMARS systems. A wheeled platform could be assembled/integrated a lot easier than some of you might think..

Where is the advantage....I have read all you have written and I am still left with I would rather have the gun in position with the truck as a prime mover. I can sling load HMMWV and M119A1; can't do it once I put it on an LMTV. If the truck goes down in a truck mounted system, the entire weapon system is deadlined and reportable....if the prime mover goes down for a towed piece, I can always grab another which can pull. And how tall do you want to make this truck? Where does the crew go? 4 of the 7 guys on the crew are managing ammo. Where do they go on a truck mount system? Oh, and one other thing, a pedastal mount M119A1 can fire 360 degrees in a fire base situation...you can't do that in a truck mounted system.

I'm not trying to say this is a necessity; only an option. Every weapon system has its pluses and minuses. I am not writing to the DoD and suggesting, "This is why you need this." No, I was only suggesting another possible option to towed guns...much the same as was discussed under the "AT Guns gone for good?" thread under the Armor category. Yeah, sure: in a situation like we had in A-stan, using M119s as fire base weapons like in 'Nam for supporting the forward guys is fine... but only so long as you know your adversary cannot put up effective counter battery fire. Certainly the 10th Mtn and a few others would have appreciated the additional fire support capabilities. But in an Army increasingly concerned with rapid actions/reactions and a more mobile force, towed guns in static emplacements seem a little of an anachronism. If you know the area will not fall under CBT, and you are going to play "local police force with artillery back-up", then you can make use of all the towed guns you want. But for main elements on the advance, in highly contested areas, no one has time to wait for an artillery group to set up their guns in a semi-permanent fixed site while the rest of the Army could easily advance well beyond the gun's maximum fire range in less than a day (about 18km for 105mm.) And putting the gun on a mount in the LMTV wouldn't increase the height any higher than the current vehicle (travelling configuration.) It was mentioned about where does all the gun crew go if the truck carries the gun. My question is, where do they go when their prime mover breaks down and another one takes the gun? Leave all the stuff in the broken down truck behind? Obviously, each truck carries a required amount of "stuff", with little room to take on more, and few "reserve vehicles" are available in such groups. And I agree that very few truck-mounted SPGs have 360 operations: mortars mostly. I do not have the traverse figures for the MOBAT at hand. But a 105mm gun, with a proper recoil mechanism, CAN be fired safely from a "light truck" chassis at a considerable traverse arc. Obviously, others see the concept has merit. The US Army, in its quest for more mobility and survivability, may well consider such a system. The FCS family, in its possible wheeled variant, if fitted with the 155mm suggeted for the tracked counterpart, will also not afford 360 operation. But a proposed "swap out" consideration suggesting a 105mm gun/howitzer could be exchanged in the same turret dimensions as a 120mm mortar CAN afford 360 traverse (check the FCS info over at Boeing's and UDLP's sites). I haven't ordered Jane's Armour and Artillery 2004-2005 yet, but they could offer much more data on these newer systems. And certainly the J's A&A Upgrades can give more info on the US Army's plans for 105mm in service. Keep it simple and towed, you'll lose out on keeping up with mobile forces (no fire on the move. Or also, no stop, deploy, fire, scoot, in 60-or-so seconds like mobile SPGs can afford.) And just how many UH-60s and CH-47s ARE needed to move 1 gun, 1 prime mover, and a worthwhile stock of ammo, crew provisions, and whatnot? A laden FMTV, carrying gun on board, would fall around 20,000lbs (guesstimating an LMTV model with an extra 4500 lbs of gun), which is transportable by CH-47 (the Brits hoof 8-10 ton Scorpion series vehicles routinely). Can't say I've ever seen a Blackhawk carry loaded Humvees prime-moving for 105mm guns, so I'm assuming the CH-47s are going to be involved somewhere in this equation. But ideally, you don't move an entire artillery group by helicopter. Resupply, certainly. But most likely, the artillery section will move as an entire group, on the ground, or "partial out"/attach to units needing the support. Certainly though, a helicopter can bring in replacement guns for fire bases, bu not all future ops are going to be centered around fire bases. If we're looking at artillery for infantry support only, then towing 120mm mortars (12km with RAP/ER) with ATVs is adequate, and easily Blackhawk transportable. Heck, why don't we create a towing limber and ammo caisson: then we can let the SFs on horseback tow it when they didn't get a Humvee or have a confiscated civilian vehicle or technical to function as prime mover for their gun..