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: SP or Towed for Norway?
Guardsman 7207    8/19/2006 3:12:20 PM
Norway has the old M109, its been in service for decades and badly needs a replacement. It was to be the Pzh2000, but the government backed out in the last minute due to financial reasons. Really screwed over the suppliers, the Dutch who were selling off some off their surplus inventory, but that is another story... Norways situation is this: enourmous territory, difficult terrain, poor road network, lots of bridges, most of whom dont support more than 65 tons(or less), and little or no heavy lift capacity, neither helo's nor fixed wing. Then the questions is: SP or Towed arty? In such a situation,what gives you enough firepower and mobility? Are SP guns always the better choice? Maybe a variant of the Caesar system would do better? Or simply a towed M777 or a very light alternative with the L119?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
Guardsman 7207    RE:SP or Towed for Norway?   8/20/2006 7:45:00 PM
Interoperability is certainly an issue. And not just because they need it, given the increased level of participation in international operations, but also because the signal effect of buying something that is not NATO standard would indicate less commitment to the NATO cooperation. Also NATO troops train regularily in Norway, using in particular 105mm (Royal Marines). So that is why I only consider 105's and 155's a real option. There are certainly those that would argue towards less focus on interoperability, such as those who favour the JAS-39 Gripen from Saab over the F-35 for the new fighter aircraft, but even they use the recent NATO standardization of equipment within the Gripen as an argument in favour. So there is no dodging bullets, even among them... But using M777 with Excalibur, would you not get more guns, more accurate fire at a better cost than with a fleet of old M109's? And still have enough mobility? Given Norway's size, basing yourself on helicopters would be extremely expensive, you would need a vast fleet of them, so much of this will have to be moved through the mud no matter what...
 
Quote    Reply

Guardsman 7207    RE:SP or Towed for Norway? Doggtag   8/20/2006 7:50:43 PM
Humm... nice idea, but no more reindeer sleds out there anymore:P What I think is more plausible is the Bv206, but it would need something heavier than a mortar, for instance the L119 behind. But the essence of my thread was: Can a modern force actually rely on the 105, or do you really need the 155 for their firepower?
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:SP or Towed for Norway? Doggtag   8/20/2006 8:10:14 PM
"Can a modern force actually rely on the 105, or do you really need the 155 for their firepower?" If you think in terms of requirements rather than individual weapons, for instance, "We need to be able to deliver X amount of ordnance on Y location within Z amount of time", you can replace the firepower of a 155mm gun in a number of ways. As has already been stated, 105mm guns can achieve a higher rate of fire, and can carry more shells for the weight of a 155mm. I believe this line of thinking was decided upon in the British army standardising on 81mm mortars, and getting rid of all our heavy mortars. Alternatively, you can replace the firepower of the 155mm guns with air-power. Ther Germans did this in WWII, using their Stukas to try and make up for their lack of suitable heavy artillery. Of course in the case of the Germans, although they started with succes, when running into strong enemy air activity their air-power means of delivering the firepower crumbled. Other options would include battleild rocket artillery such as LMRS, or even perhaps UAV's armed with Helfire.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:SP or Towed for Norway? Doggtag   8/21/2006 5:53:47 AM
It all gets back to purpose. This will determine the balance between requirements for protection, mobility and firepower, an equation that for arty is far starker tna it now is for tanks. For protection, SPs obviously give better protection against conventional munitions, but they can be fired from inside buildings and this gives some protection against precision munitions (confusing the sensors rather than physical). On the other had towed guns, particularly small ones are not easy to destroy but offer their crews virtually no protection. The only towed gun that tried to do anything about this was the 1950s 85-mm Garrington gun that never entered service. History shows that mobility is mostly a peacetime concern. You can move SPs by rail or rd tptrs into the area of operations, that's what is done with tanks and other AFVs. It's also notable that in the 1960/70s the Bundeswehr decided that M109 was suitable to provide direct support to 4 Mtn Div. Firepower is the combination of range, rate of fire and shell weight, with the important note that cargo munitions, particularly those with smart payloads still need larger shells. From this its easy to pick the worst option - guns mounted on trucks that only have armoured cabs, big targets and no crew protection in action for no discernable mobility benefit. Therefore if wou want an armoured SP you look for the best value for money, something that isn't overburdened with bells, whistles and best posible performance like PzH2000. However, you probably need the munitions capability of 155mm. 105mm is good in some situations but its really not suitable as the artillery mainstay. Incidentally the UK has never seriously used 'NATO' type 105mm, both Abbot and L118 fire 105mm Fd ammo, and its the latter that they've always deployed in Norway with light forces.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:SP or Towed for Norway? Doggtag   8/21/2006 6:42:42 AM
I would go for a mix of 120mm mortars (instead of 105mm howitzers), and either towed 155mm M777, or possibly the Supacat-mounted M777. I would also seek to add a small (very small) number of MLRS systems, with GMLRS rockets. The 120mm mortars give you rate of fire, with the 155mm giving long range fire, and the GMLRS gives precision strike capability.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:SP or Towed for Norway? Doggtag   8/21/2006 10:20:22 AM
(my apologies for the sled dog/reindeer suggestion: the pic I saw was Finnish, not Norge.) A note on the last few posts, what always surprised me was NATO's "reckless abandon" that nothing was needed between 105 and 155 (up until the widespread adoption of shorter-ranged-than-artillery 120mm mortars). For decades, the majority of USN surface combatants, and those of allies who bought US designs, were armed with 5"/127mm weapons. For the USMC especially (trying to maintain at least minimal commonality with USN), I'm surprised no one ever considered (not since pre-WW2) to equip marine-type ground forces (not necessarily just the US forces) with 5" guns, allowing commonality with naval guns (and 5" guided weapons have been under development for some time). There are plenty of mid-calibers: the 4.5" and 120mm guns I mentioned earlier, the Russians adopted 130mm, and had the British kept the 5.5" gun around and improved it on the same level 155mm was, we now would have any number of formidable middle-caliber long-range gun/howitzers, that offer greater payload than 105, yet smaller logistics footprint than 155mm (weight & number of shells per volume), yet with greater ranges than 120mm mortars reach. And shoe-horning course-correction or guidance & steering mechanisms into calibers >105mm would be easier than going to smaller diameters. (For the record, the Russians developed a laser-seeker shell for the mobile 130mm coastal gun (A-222 Bereg?), and France at one time tinkered with the idea of an IR-homing round for its 100mm Compact Naval Mount.) So I've always wondered if some mid-range caliber (4.5-5.5") would offer near-155mm performances, but closer to 105mm bulk for logistics. I am still impressed by the performance figures South Afrika has pulled out of artillery guns: taking the GC-45 concept a step further (G6-52) to create (with the VLAP shell) the longest-ranged, fieldable tube artillery in existence...then taking things a step further with the 30+km-ranged LEO 105 (G7). I'd be curious to see how capable these other calibers I've mentioned would perform/compare against other current systems, any one of which could've offered more than any 105 but without as much added bulk and logistical burden of 155's. Perhaps improvements in mortar technology would allow longer tubes on 120mm's to reach ranges in excess of the 17km of L118/119 105mm types (and the comparably-ranged French LG1). When your artillery has greater range, you don't have to move it as often to cover a given area (or you can keep it operating in a smaller AO), and you have a better chance at out-ranging any CBF. The only probblem that's run into, though, is that the mortar most likely would need breech-loading capability, as troops would have difficulty muzzle-loading long tubes without depressing the barrel (even though modern fire control systems can quickly re-lay the gun tube to previous positions). The Russians already did it, in the form of the NONA mortar systems: http://www.enemyforces.com/artillery/nonak.htm>http://www.enemyforces.com/artillery/nonak.htm ...but I doubt Norway would adopt any Russian systems...especially with its nearer-neighbor Finland offering the very promising AMOS and NEMO systems (couple that to SAAB's developments in PGMMs).
 
Quote    Reply

Mechanic    RE:SP or Towed for Norway? Doggtag   8/21/2006 1:00:15 PM
"(my apologies for the sled dog/reindeer suggestion: the pic I saw was Finnish, not Norge.)" No dog/reindeer/horse/cow sleds in Finland either :) And add some respect when you talk about one of the biggest artillery nations in Europe: Country inventory includes (but limited to): 218 x 122 mm D-30 howitzer (H 63) 126 x 152 mm gun-howitzer D-20 (H55) 136 x 130 mm m/54 FG (K 54) 24 x 152 mm 2A36 gun 64 x 152 mm H 37 A GH 54 x 155 mm 155 GH 52 APU (very modern 52 cal towed gun. Range up to 39 km) 72 x 122 mm 2S1 SPH 18 x 152 mm 2S5 SPG 36 x 122 mm RM-70 MRS 24 x 122 mm BM-21 MRS 24 x AMOS twin 120 mm (more to be ordered?) up to 22 MLRS ordered, delivery 2007 +mortars, 81 mm KRH 71 Y 120 mm KRH 92
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:SP or Towed for Norway? Doggtag   8/21/2006 1:19:47 PM
Perhaps 120mm would be a workable caliber for artillery systems between 105 and 155mm in NATO nations? Of course, it is closer to 105mm, but it may well provide enough capacity to fit the new guidance systems of 155mm weapons. The main reason I mention 120mm though, is obviously because it is the NATO standard tank gun, and it would be useful if the current ammunition could be used. Given the proper guidance systems and elevation ability, is there any reason why a 120mm rifled(?) tank gun could not be used as an artillery gun?
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:SP or Towed for Norway?   8/23/2006 5:04:56 AM
Calibre only really becomes an issue if you want light artillery. 155mm with a roughly 45kg proj is at the upper limit for a one person lift on OH&S grounds. Therefore ypou don't really want a bigger calibre. However, the larger the calibre the greater the 'carrying power' of the shell (ie for a given MV the heaviest shell will go furthest). That said I'd agree there's a case to re-think the optimum calibre for light arty. Bigger gives better range and better cargo capacity, the price is a heavier carriage or a tradeoff with desirable features such as rapid wide traverse (best achieved with a platform, but reasonable with a sole plate) and possibly rate of fire (depending on round weight) and chamber size. The other problem with light arty is the need for carriage stability, mostly a function of trunnion height (and hence recoil length at large elevations) which is also influenced by barrel length/weight.
 
Quote    Reply

Sabre    RE:SP or Towed for Norway?   8/23/2006 11:11:00 AM
The other issue in deciding caliber, I would say, is the effects on target. Once upon a time, you wanted maximum effects on target with the first salvo - the subsequent salvos would find the enemy taking what cover they could (even lying prone can improve the chances of survival). So if a given target called for a Battery 3 (three rounds from each gun, 18, or 24 for an 8 gun battery, total), then from a pure effects standpoint, theoretically it would be preferrable to have a Battery 1 from tubes firing shells three times larger. (Basically... there are inaccuracies in there, but that is the basic idea...) 105mm shells are 15kg(ish) and 155mm are 45kg(ish) - um, I seem to recall that for 155mm 4 square was 95, and 103.5 lbs for the DPICM family, with fuze. Assuming that most targets call for multiple salvos (I think the JMEM's are classified...) a 155mm shell will rarely, if ever, be "overkill", at least compared to a 105mm. The times, they are a changin', though. Now the demand seems to be for the tiniest bit of explosive, precisely on the target. Before the advent of precision artillery shells, I would have argued for bigger guns - yes the ammunition is heavier, but the amount of steel that you have to put on a target is the same for a given target, the smaller guns just have to fire more times to accomplish that feat, so the logistical savings are minimal. One can argue about the relative suppressive effects of 155mm fire compared to triple the volume of 105mm fire (since both are the same mass /logistical load). The MRSI fire mission is also now technologically feasible for up to 6 rounds (if you are using S. African equipment). In my experience, targets were fleeting and I needed the biggest bang that I could get in the absolute shortest amount of time, so I voted for 155.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics