tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post3745712713407893426..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: Split trail howitzer carriages and hyped weapons in generalUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-54182341969892761852017-12-04T21:22:39.765+01:002017-12-04T21:22:39.765+01:00Suuure.Suuure.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-1656505682274609472017-12-04T18:03:10.583+01:002017-12-04T18:03:10.583+01:00I was told that the american military had written ...I was told that the american military had written a design-specification 'wish-list' which they hawked around every american System-House. All the System Houses said the required specification for such a weapon was impossible to achieve, principally because a gun so light would be unstable and furthermore would be too flimsy to withstand the inherent explosive forces. I was given two years to set-up a design team and build the first two demonstrator guns. JOB DONE!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-8865778825025693932017-08-20T21:40:12.817+02:002017-08-20T21:40:12.817+02:00FM 3-09 was revised in 2014, with lots of referenc...FM 3-09 was revised in 2014, with lots of references to smoke for obscuration and screening as well as to illumination.<br /><br />The procurement of modern multispectral smoke shells and IR illumination shells may not have a high priority while they are facing marginal warbands only, but they didn't really give up on something as important as arty-delivered smoke or illumination.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-38160945853020419422017-08-20T21:06:00.031+02:002017-08-20T21:06:00.031+02:00Illumination? Smoke? Dude, the us military obvious...Illumination? Smoke? Dude, the us military obviously left these gimmicks far behind. Syrians are very fond of them though, plenty of videos of "mighty arty fire missions" from that war.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04165572564871624028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-7786359973116348002017-08-20T18:51:32.717+02:002017-08-20T18:51:32.717+02:00PGMs are suitable only against known point targets...PGMs are suitable only against known point targets, preferably ones that don't move much.<br /><br />Artillery does much more than that. It provides (IR) illumination,p provides (multispectral) smoke, delivers suppressing fires and delivers area fires on not exactly known positions.<br />For example, there may be a 800x300 m patch of woodland from which infantry with ATGMs and foreign observers dominate each 3 km wide open terrain left and right. There's too much wind to provide smoke concealment. Area HE fires against the woodland (or in summer incendiary effect) are needed to neutralise the problem and enable a safe-enough movement of a battlegroup through the open terrain.<br />You can't do that with Excalibur, and M777 & M109A6/A7 couldn't do it economically beyond base bleed range, or at all beyond RAP range. Meanwhile, L/52 guns could execute such a fire mission at several more km range, and with greater efficiency within the BB and RAP ranges of the 39 cal guns. This matters a lot because land is two dimensional, so the area covered grows in square of range.<br /><br />You don't know what I know about GPS EW. It's too technical and too large a topic to debate in comments.<br /><br />I suppose we can agree to disagree about why the U.S. tube arty is stuck in the 1970's. Talk to redlegs about it who are not representing the service in an official capacity.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-31800936115230609142017-08-20T18:37:49.877+02:002017-08-20T18:37:49.877+02:00No doubt there are some idiots running the U.S.mil...No doubt there are some idiots running the U.S.military (just look at how far Flynn made it career-wise), but overall the issues are the result of grown dysfunctionalities of the organisation and its regulation as well as ordinary bureaucratic behaviour.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-65168338255694794012017-08-20T14:41:59.944+02:002017-08-20T14:41:59.944+02:00ok, whatever with the definition of the barrages, ...ok, whatever with the definition of the barrages, but maximum rate of fire is important if you are to use conventional arty against a high tech opponent at all and so many of the pzh2000 videos show it off fairly well.<br /><br />Sure the us military is run by idiots.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04165572564871624028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-9732532666314968482017-08-20T14:34:24.254+02:002017-08-20T14:34:24.254+02:00You would expend as many as needed for victory and...You would expend as many as needed for victory and if you had that many targets for these rounds then you would fire and deal huge damage to the opposing army, these are not nukes after all, it's that simple.<br /><br />Traditional artillery has a huge appetite for munitions, because it is still an old concept of warfighting. Firing lots of relatively small munitions with relatively low accuracy. These are not the weapons to win modern big wars. Not even a small diameter bomb with a ~100km range is a such a weapon, yet you can probably appraise from available materials the capability of an f-35.<br /><br />An what's all this talk of "lesser expensive" "more newer" "eccm tech"? You have to know the specifics otherwise the point is very moot. <br /><br />US artillery is stuck in the 70s for a reason. They spend their money where it makes most sense and where their capability will be most difficult to counter.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04165572564871624028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-70334708787637821912017-08-20T10:42:50.705+02:002017-08-20T10:42:50.705+02:00Ram assists et cetera are not important for barrag...Ram assists et cetera are not important for barrage fires, for barrage fires happen at the maximum sustained rate of fire which is 1-2 rpm. Loading automation serves to improve the maximum rate of fire, and to claim that the U.S.Army is disinterested in this is unsupportable. They just cannot have a good maximum RoF it with their tube artillery.<br /><br />The U.S.Army wanted Crusader, which had everything that M777 lacked; mobility, protection, good traverse, high maximum rate of fire, high sustained rate of fire, long range. The bureaucracy was merely too incompetent at project management to get an all-new AFV like Crusader developed and into service. That's the same problem as for why the Abrams/Bradley generation of platforms is still in service without a successor and why the replacement of Kiowas failed repeatedly.<br />They're too incompetent as an organisation.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-49167722218904044872017-08-20T10:36:04.799+02:002017-08-20T10:36:04.799+02:00Nobody would expend 8,000 Excaliburs a day. The po...Nobody would expend 8,000 Excaliburs a day. The point is that artillery has a huge hunger for munitions, and PGMs are so few that they cannot sate this hunger for long. Late versions of Excalibur are the only long-range munitions of M777 and M109A6/A7, though - thus these arty systems have very little long range firepower.<br />Moreover, modern tube arty has superior range with smoke and Illum munitions compared to M777 & M109A6/A7. <br /><br />To jam GPS signals is easy if your country is space-faring. Moreover, we know that GPS receivers have varying degrees of ECCM - the expensive ones with the best ECCM are only in somewhat new and expensive systems. Most military GPS users and old GPS-dependent munitions have weak ECCM.<br /><br />It's always true to say that arty has "limited range", for all arty pieces have "limited range". It's also correct to say that M777 and M1099A6/A7 have inferior range compared to 155 mm L/45 and L/52 arty pieces and to 2S19. Range-wise the U.S. army tube artillery weapons are stuck in the 1970's.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-24595389849778278922017-08-20T08:47:10.311+02:002017-08-20T08:47:10.311+02:00Also, note that the american military doesn't ...Also, note that the american military doesn't seem all that hot on the idea of massive artillery barrages to say the least, as their newest spg lacks even a rammer. And they refused to go ahead with the crusader meaning their vision of combat differs from the that of the wehrmacht.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04165572564871624028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-74358726346934762872017-08-20T08:39:44.417+02:002017-08-20T08:39:44.417+02:00You wouldn't need to expend 8000 rounds of exc...You wouldn't need to expend 8000 rounds of excalibur per day. If you did, that would possibly mean a destroyed vehicle/helicopter/weapon's crew per every round and is a desirable situation provided the recon can supply that many targets. Jamming a gps signal is not easy and there is no available information on the ecm susceptability of receivers vs various jammers' capability, so no need to bring this into the argument. m777 is a distributed weapon system and saying that is has limited range is the same as saying that hellfire's 8km range on the apache makes that a poor weapon. Not true.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04165572564871624028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-32493263954158322862017-08-06T08:17:08.229+02:002017-08-06T08:17:08.229+02:00Why is 360 necessary? Is 170 not fully sufficient?...Why is 360 necessary? Is 170 not fully sufficient? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-56698029692629811572017-08-06T08:11:18.952+02:002017-08-06T08:11:18.952+02:00Everything has a an improved range with the later ...Everything has a an improved range with the later versions of Excalibur, with Vulcano et cetera. And I've read that Excalibur range excuse for the M777 often enough. It's bollocks. Excalibur is unsuitable for most artillery fire missions and available in small quantities only. There are less than 7,000 rounds. A brigade's artillery could be expected to expend 8,000 rounds in a day.<br />Also, "peer enemy" and GPS navigation don't match. The "peer enemy" would be expected to jam the weak GPS signal, possibly even with satellites.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-68418662493670640242017-08-05T23:10:38.474+02:002017-08-05T23:10:38.474+02:00M777 has insane range with excalibur and that is h...M777 has insane range with excalibur and that is how it's most likely going to used against a "peer enemy".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-72247840371296845872017-08-05T18:02:44.544+02:002017-08-05T18:02:44.544+02:00Hi Sven- Not my place to correct you; but I believ...Hi Sven- Not my place to correct you; but I believe the M777 is a British design and is built by BAE with significant parts built in the States. The guys over at ThinkDefence did a piece a while back about it going over some of the traverse issues you mention.<br />http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/07/105mm-155mm-something/<br />The Indians bought it in part because it dovetails with the Mountain Strike Corps needs and also because their new Chinook acquisition can carry it.<br /><br />--DevAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-32694823913880669522017-08-05T15:06:42.665+02:002017-08-05T15:06:42.665+02:00Can the firm that developped the 105mm soft recoil...Can the firm that developped the 105mm soft recoil Hawkeye not develop a 155mm version on a simple tracked base e.g. from a light tank? Only asking.<br /><br />Conclusius Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-26421319535557414262017-08-04T10:10:54.783+02:002017-08-04T10:10:54.783+02:00There's little difference between Krab and PzH...There's little difference between Krab and PzH2000 in the specs that I saw unless your bridging is for MLC50.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-24874533729631802982017-08-04T10:08:45.733+02:002017-08-04T10:08:45.733+02:00A wheeled SPG like Archer would be a replacement f...A wheeled SPG like Archer would be a replacement for M777, no downgrade at all. Even if it was used to replace M109 as well, it would have both improvements (range, rate of fire, road marches) and reductions of capability (munitions, munition supply, traverse).S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-7824022017327428132017-08-04T09:35:22.483+02:002017-08-04T09:35:22.483+02:00Prolonged fire missions and shoot & scoot don&...Prolonged fire missions and shoot & scoot don't fit together unless you think of units, not individual guns. I suppose prolonged fire missions have no place in high end conventional warfare until the opoposing force is badly degraded already. I think prolonged fire missions in NATO defence are good at most for reduction of pockets.<br /><br /><br />My point was that it would be quite stupid to spend millions on a weapon system that is les capable in certain ways than its predecessor.<br /><br />If a combined arms group need to cross some open terrain before they could start demolish an enemy position themselves. more shells could be needed from a battery than the 60 on each gun.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-21669951804551891562017-08-04T08:55:00.699+02:002017-08-04T08:55:00.699+02:00What about Polish (mostly South Korean in fact) Kr...What about Polish (mostly South Korean in fact) Krab? - Denel`s G7/LEO should be good enough for American paratroopers/Stryker brigades, but... - By the way, Slovak Zuzana in its first version (ZUZANA 2 has 52 calliber barrel) represents a little bit inferior design, but Czechs will buy even worse "modernized" SPGs from seventies in old 152 mm WP caliber with effective firing range 25 500 m. - Europe really needs common military aquisition agency, because too many countries use technically inferior/too expensive/inferior and still too expensive "patriotic" systems. Karelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15236107941843936832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-49960391939676417362017-08-04T08:12:39.896+02:002017-08-04T08:12:39.896+02:00Right, I looked up Archer and it does 170°, not 36...Right, I looked up Archer and it does 170°, not 360°.<br />http://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/20170725165426/1434555671252.pdf<br />30 seconds into and 30 seconds out of position equals up to one minute for repositioning, still only half as much as M777 needs for pivoting (if there's enough room to manoeuvre a large lorry at all).<br />That's both hugely better than the poor 46° of M777, which are one of the if not the worst traverse characteristics among split trail carriages. The Déport gun of pre-WWI already had 54°. Archer doesn't fit into a C-130, but I doubt that this could matter much.<br /><br />Prolonged fire missions and shoot & scoot don't fit together unless you think of units, not individual guns. I suppose prolonged fire missions have no place in high end conventional warfare until the opoposing force is badly degraded already. I think prolonged fire missions in NATO defence are good at most for reduction of pockets.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-70249218864892402862017-08-03T21:59:44.493+02:002017-08-03T21:59:44.493+02:00And a last note Archer was designed an built for S...And a last note Archer was designed an built for Sweden.<br /><br />Norway's stupid mess into that system was some political bullshit.<br />The system just didn't fit into any part of the Norwegian defense doctrine or in the terrain. <br /><br />If it is really fit for purposes for the Swedes, is another question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-83976434114076044982017-08-03T21:54:06.675+02:002017-08-03T21:54:06.675+02:00Archer doesn't do 360. And both Archer and AGM...Archer doesn't do 360. And both Archer and AGM is grounded in a belief that technology is the solution to everything. <br />Neither of these can do prolonged fire missions because the magazines can not be topped upp during fire missions. Maybe not that important for a country like USA but, if you intend to bring in something to replace Paladin it should not loose a capacity.<br /><br />IMO you either go along the lines of K9 or if absolutely necessary, PzH2000.<br />Or you go along the lines of the original Caesar/Atmos2000 for lower cost and less need for HET trailers(although that is a lie in reality, most users place these trucks on HETs anyhow...).<br /><br />Towed is OK for units that fight positional war like USMC, only doable under a ridiculously large air umbrella.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-72940665876366133882017-08-03T07:41:08.533+02:002017-08-03T07:41:08.533+02:00I understand if the Americans don't want to us...I understand if the Americans don't want to use 105 mm calibre due to standardisation. The M 777 still makes sense at most for India (at its Himalaya border with the PRC), so the Americans should simply replace almost all their M777 and sell them to India.<br /><br />ZUZANA has a 45cal barrel with inferior range compared 52cal SPGs.<br /><br />A 360° 155 mm 52cal SPG would be the best option. AGM and Archer come to mind.<br />http://www.military-today.com/artillery/archer.htm<br />They - particularly AGM - could even replace both M777 and M109 once the weapon system is paired with American fire control & radio tech and an American chassis. PzH2000 would be better for the heavy BCTs due to munitions capacity and resupply speed, though.<br /><br />A towed gun is necessary for heliborne or airborne employment; the Americans would certainly stick to M777 (sunk costs, ammunition in depots) rather than to buy a 105 mm gun, but no more than a few dozen would be needed for all airborne/heliborne forces of the U.S..<br /><br />(Archer was developed for Norway and Sweden. The U.S.Army could have completed not much more than concept and feasibility studies with that kind of development budget.)S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.com