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: Artillery for Light Troops
Thomas    6/11/2003 5:24:12 AM
On the infantry board, there is a discussion of the future of light infantry. On the armour board there is a discussion of the future (if any) of the Light tank. To complement these discussion in the spirit of combined arms: What sort of artillery should go with Light troops. It should be airportable. It should be "resupplyable". It should be able to operate under the conditions of the Light Infantry. Any thoughts?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT
doggtag    RE:Artillery for Light Troops -    10/14/2004 9:27:00 PM
"Howitzer in a Stryker - - - Will never happen." Ummm, OK. But how about in a LAV III? http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/ click on the "105mm LAV III Artillery Weapon System"; it's a rundown of the development of the GDLP/Denel LEO 105mm gun, incorporated into an 8x8 LAV III hull, and compared to other systems (notably, the UDLP NLOS-C with its 155mm gun.) It's in .pdf format (for all you Adobe fans.) Notice that it manages to shoehorn itself into a C-130, something they are still trying to master with the Stryker MGS and its "low profile overhead gun system"...which actually looks higher than the Denel LEO turret on the LAV III. "Better High-Altitude Helicopters..." A good portion of UN helos are Russian-build Mi-8s, and these powerful beasts are more than adequate at some higher altitudes. Again, I mentioned that the UH-60 could improve its performasnce by means of redesigned rotor blades (of an improved length/chord ratio), and even additional blades over its current 4 (the CH-53E uses 7, the Mi-26 uses 8.) Such improvements would generate more lift available at the same or slightly improved power levels (and even at slighty lower RPMs), and additional lift improvement/augmentation is what is needed for higher-altitude helo ops. The AH-1W Cobra, "4-blade Whiskey", has a vastly improved lift capability over its two-bladed brethren, as do 4-blade versions of the 212, 214, and 412 models of the Huey family when compared to the 2-blade versions. And considering the teething troubles we've experienced with the V-22 Osprey, I seriously doubt the benefits of a 4-rotor version will outweigh the safety risks. The reason for improved ground SP weapons is because they won't be as bound to atmospheric concerns as aircraft will (the "high mountains + low clouds = we're not flying, you're on your own" argument.) Seems what we really need is a modern-day equivalent of the WW2 M8 Howitzer Motor Carriage (a 75mm pack howitzer in a modified Stuart hull.) This vehicle weighed about 17 tons, and had a 75mm howitzer capable of just over 5 miles range and held about 46 rounds (and normally carried a lot more in an ammo trailer behind it.) Where I'm going with this is where I touched off before: The French developed gun mortar, also called combination gun, offers us a useful system (although we need not buy them from France.) There is an MCB 81mm which can reach 8000m, loading from the breech or muzzle, can fire an APFSDS round in direct-fire mode which can kill any known AFV short of a modern MBT (1000m/sec, penetrating 90mm of steel RHA @ 1000m), and 81mm mortar bombs, with air-burst prox fuzes, are still quite useful. In the EMC-81 turret of the French ERC armored car, the weapon has access to 72 rounds, fair enough for a "light day's work". The Russians use a 120mm version combination gun, as used in the towed 2B16 NONA-K, the tracked SO-120 (2S9) and the tracked 2S31 Vena, and the wheeled (8x8) 2S23. With the Russian HE-RAP round these can hurl 120mm rounds to almost 13km, and the Kitolov-2M laser-guided shell is reported to reach almost 14km (precision guidance approaching 105mm howitzer ranges.) The nearly-20ton 2S31 Vena carries 70 120mm mortar rounds and 10 PGMs. Certainly credible fire support. The UK Alvis CVR(T) Scorpion's 76mm L23 (also similar to the 76mm gun of the Saladin 6x6 armored car and Australia's M113 Fire Support Vehicle's gun) can also be useful for fire missions, but their low maximum angle limits range. Point being, it is certainly possible to mount effective artillery firepower, in the form of 81mm or 120mm mortars or 105mm howitzers, onto lightweight hulls without cracking the frames. Certainly it is arguable that light forces might prefer towed guns, but that means additional vehicles for more ammo (or helicopters have to risk taking fire bringing in more ammo), whereas the majority of even lightweight SP guns (under 20 tons) carry a decent amount of ammo (the 18 ton FV433 Abbot 105mm SP gun carried 40 rounds, which is more than a Humvee towing a 105mm M119 will carry. Incidentally, much of the British towed L118, which evolved into the US towed M119, was derived from the Abbot's 105mm L13 series gun!) It is quite possible, with the knowledge we have in modern recoil mechanisms, to create a lightweight vehicle (under 15 tons) with a potent light artillery piece (105mm or 120mm) and capable of hauling a good quantity of ammunition (at least 3 dozen rounds of howitzer ammo in 105mm, or at least 5 dozen rounds of mortar ammo in 120mm) in a mount capable of both close-range direct fire and medium range indirect fire. Seeing as the Alvis Sorpion was adapted to fit the 90mm C*ckerill Mk III gun, I see no reason why a turret mounting the above-mentioned French MCB 81 turret with its 70+ rounds couldn't be fitted, either. This would provide, in a Chinook-transportable hull, a fire support vehicle capable of 8km range fire support (even 10km or more with n
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    ...on M102s with life left in 'em   10/14/2004 9:38:17 PM
There are several nations who still use the basic concept of the M102: concept, I say, because they have been so modernized, upgraded, and improved that the only thing really remaining of the original M102 may be the name on the data plate, the original basic carriage/trail legs that leaves it still vaguely resembling an M102, and a few miscellaneous nuts and bolts. Many nations have incorporate new fire controls (including digital), new barrels of improved manufacture and metallurgy (allowing larger charges, greater ranges, and improved barrel life)...even new tires and paint! :P Pretty much a new gun altogether. .
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Artillery for Light Troops -    10/15/2004 6:36:11 AM
"A 155mm artillery round is a two-man carry.", really 45 kg is within the OH&S limits for a single person lift in most if not all countries, there's plenty of pictures of girls carrying 155mm. Perhaps I'd better stop before I say something upsetting.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Artillery for Light Troops -    10/15/2004 6:55:06 AM
(the 18 ton FV433 Abbot 105mm SP gun carried 40 rounds, which is more than a Humvee towing a 105mm M119 will carry. Incidentally, much of the British towed L118, which evolved into the US towed M119, was derived from the Abbot's 105mm L13 series gun!) At the risk of being pedantic on a small point of historical fact, the L13 ordnance used by the L109 Abbot was slightly longer than the L19 ordnance of the L118 Light Gun (hence the slight difference in max range, the L19 is a tad shorter). Nothing from Abbot evolved into the Light Gun although both L13 and L19 ordnance use the '105mm Fd' ammunition system. The L118 did not evolve into the M119. The Brits had stocks of 105mm M1 ammo ('105mm How' in Brit terminology)and developed the L20 ordnance to fire it mounted on the L118's L17 carriage, this combination being called L119 and only a dozen or so were produced for use in a training unit. The US adopted this L119 training gun as an operational gun and called it M119. I guess the other backwards step the US made was to change the sights to deflection laying, which the rest of the world had ditched decades before. Obviously the US artillery did not value an increase in range from about 11km to about 17km. Weird thinking. Some might find it amusing to think that Brit university students use the L118 and hence have a better gun than front line units of the US Army.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:Artillery for Light Troops - doggtag   10/15/2004 7:58:02 AM
I agree that there are solutions to the UH-60 high & hot problem. On your light SP artillery proposals, what would the basis of issue be? Something based on an 81mm or 60mm mortar would not be useful above battalion or company level, respectively. Also, I seriously doubt any responsible military would adopt a new chassis just for the sake of this type of light artillery piece, so whatever was chosen would have to be in the pipeline for other purposes. Currently in U.S. light units, that would come down to Hummers and trucks of various flavors.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Artillery for Light Troops - BOI   10/15/2004 10:23:48 AM
1 for 1 M119A2 for a M119A1 in units which have them. M109A5/6s get turned in from NG units which were corps SP and are now UA fires battalion on a 1 for 1 M119A2.
 
Quote    Reply

Rainmaker-55    RE:Artillery for Light Troops - .....Rainmaker 55   10/15/2004 1:14:05 PM
Would I beleive it? My unit still uses M102's, and the regular Army is putting them out as Museum pieces. You have know idea how depressing it is to go to the "school house" (Fort Sill, home of the Field Artillery) tell them your weapon system, and get looked at like you're crazy!
 
Quote    Reply

Rainmaker-55    RE:Artillery for Light Troops - Rainmaker-55   10/15/2004 1:16:56 PM
$#%@#$@! school house. They couldn't stop hyping Crusader, but leave us in the dark on this one. Well, I'll never see it. My state is home to a "light" brigade (because it's cheaper). M119A2's are in our future.
 
Quote    Reply

Rainmaker-55    RE:...on M102s with life left in 'em   10/15/2004 1:25:37 PM
They WERE STARTING to rebuild them. But the regular army has completely gone over to the M119 series, and now they've restarted M119A2 construction for the regular army AND reserves/guard. The national guard has a handful of M102 battalions across the U.S., and if they are anything like ours, worried about the carriage cracking on charge 7 (which several of ours have done). We've had M102 howitzers wait years at direct support to be fixed because of parts issues. It's a good howitzer, however, they're too old. I'd like to see production of an improved M102 started. Replace the barrel and beef up the recoil system so it could handle the M119'ers barrel and charge 8 firing. THAT would be one fine, accurate howitzer!
 
Quote    Reply

Rainmaker-55    RE:Artillery for Light Troops -    10/15/2004 1:34:02 PM
Are you sure you've seen photos of 155mm carried around like that? 105mm, heck yeah, but because of the size, weight, and center of gravity on 155mm, you tend to wear out your ammo handlers pretty quick. You can carry them by yourself for short distances. I've done it. However, on towed pieces, like the M198, for decent ramming, you need two people.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics