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: Crusader :will take over MLRS
[email protected]    3/21/2002 4:31:47 PM
after seeing the MLRS in the gulf,one would never wantt to be under those bomblets,it's a groundpounders worst nightmare,can't say armor would be to thrilled with the more advance anti-tank warheads either.....I've often thought all kuwait really needed for a proper defence,given the terrain, was a wall around the country of MLRS&MLRS-ER and a few stingers to handel the Iraq army...But I think there is a real rebirth of field-tube systems going on,with the Crusader-light being the F-22 of artillery. Along with the South Africans, the crusader brings range and multi-round on target(from one tube)to new levels...This and given the new type of western only limted death-toll style warfare couple with the fact the world as a whole is far more urban,the 155/52 offers far greater precision and lower cost.The latter being something artillerymen being a tight-fisted lot will make a strong case for...Odd thing is just as the MLRS and ATCM's made it quite hard for armies to gather in large formations,and everyone saying tube is dead because of it. The world shifted to taking out a small group inside a four story building,and while everyones GPSbomb'aircraft happy combo at the moment,new tube systems when fielded will offer greater time on target, more rapid response(a few guys 60k's away sleeping inside a crusader and a target team outside any city would make the air force hard pressed to match that time) and a far less chance of stray bombs going off on there own....This and GPS jamming systems in wider use around high-value targets is just around the conner,the air foces is already working on anti-jamming GPS in their bombs driving up cost,and while the crusader vehicel itself has GPS (and some rounds) you can't jam dead steel......anyway just a thought.....Allan
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
John    Artillery is the Queen of the Battlefield   5/24/2002 9:46:09 AM
I bet Allan remembers that one too. Seriously though, I've always been taught that artillery dominates the battlefield. WW2, forget tanks and aircraft, it was won by artillery. I also think that modern technology has seriously multiplied the effectiveness of artillery against armour. What do you guys think? And if you agree, why isn't everyone talking about artillery? Crusader gets canned and no one kicks up a stink, imagine if F22 or JSF had gone! Any opinions?
 
Quote    Reply

Pete S    RE:Field Artillery   5/24/2002 1:26:00 PM
Also, even the best aircraft and airborne sensors cannot function in really BAD weather (storms, blizzards, etc.), so you can bet the Bad Guys will start to wait until then to come out to play. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weather has never grounded an artillery round. Also, how do you jam or spoof a dumb hunk of steel on a ballistic trajectory?
 
Quote    Reply

FSNCO    RE:Field Artillery   5/24/2002 4:31:48 PM
That's right weather is not a major factor with artillery. We can compansate for almost any condition.As you said once the round is fired it's going to impact where the math said it should. I'm all for the newest technology if it improves my accuracy or the speed of my response. I train my soldiers hard on the new stuff but exercise the tried and tru techniques frequently. You can't jam a pair of binoculars and a map. Laser rangefinders, night vision a/o thermal are great aids to the fight but they all require power and parts if you run out of either and you've not maintained basic skills you're in trouble. Tube artillery is responsive,accurate and devestating. Our artillery forces deserve better than we have. The M109a6 Paladin is a good system maybe it could be improved with a larger tube for better range,and a more powerful powerplant but it is a chassis that was first fielded in the early sixies. I'm not saying the Crusader was the answer it is from all I've read and seen a large heavy vehicle. It at least however addressed some of the issues with the M109 series of howitzers.
 
Quote    Reply

Pete S    RE:Field Artillery   5/24/2002 8:29:17 PM
In condemning Crusader, the refrain is heard that the gun would be a winner against a Soviet-style invasion, but it's too heavy for the modern, air- transportable force. Planners are pursuing a fantasy that a large, continental land campaign is a thing of the past (can you say China?), and that brigade or division-size operations can be fully sustained by air (wait 'til the Bad Guys sneak in with man-portable SAMs). How many bodies will be offered on that altar of foolishness? Given any kind of professional opposition, air resupply is a strictly temporary proposition, to hold until relieved on the ground. From what little I've seen, the Crusader has the goods. My main reservations are with the turbine engine on a support vehicle, and the lack of a manual operating capability. With a 30-mile gun range, vehicle mobility is not the issue it is with an infantry vehicle. The gun should be altered to an assisted loading mode, with powered munitions transfer and ramming, and allowing manual operation if needed. This would require a larger crew, but the additional crew could be carried in the support vehicle, as well as allow al higher sustained rate of fire. An example of this type setup is the Navy 5"/38 cal gun from WWII. Fuzing, fuze setting and ramming were done with power, the crew's duties were losding the shell and propellent into the loading tray, as well as aiming when the mount was under local control. If necessary, the gun could be worked totally manually.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics