The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - July 4, 2009



Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: 105mm or 155mm for Medium Brigades
Maple Leaf    8/6/2003 3:31:30 PM
My question is should the SBCT have a 105mm or 155mm gun. I look at the Canadian brigades that presently deploy the French LG1 105mm towed gun with their LAV-III equipped manoeuvre forces. Now Canada does it because of the cost of buying a 155mm gun, but maybe there is an advantage to the 105mm gun. I heard the arguement that the 105mm gun is more suited for the peace support operations of the 21st Century, because the small shell causes less collateral damage while still providing accurate and deadly fire. That is a good point. I'm wonder what others think about this. Would forces engaged in peace support operations like Somalia, Bosnia and now Liberia, be more likely to use artillery if there was less likelyhood of damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure?

I look at past peace support operations, and 105's have deployed more often than the 155's. The US deployed 105's to Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo (guns stayed in Macedonia and never actually went into Kosovo) and of course with the 82nd and 101st in both Gulf Wars. The Canadian, British and French have deployed 105mm guns to Bosnia since back in the mid-1990's with UNPROFOR, I-FOR and S-FOR. And the British sent two regiments to support its Royal Marine brigade and its air assault brigade during 'Iraqi Freedom'

Both the towed 105mm and 155mm can be carried on a tilt-bed truck as see with the M777 at www.bdec-online.com/bd-cat27/d271395.htm

So, 105mm or 155mm?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
WinsettZ    RE:105mm or 155mm for Medium Brigades   8/6/2003 4:17:12 PM
105s are lighter-weight and can probably pack more shells per pallet (or whatever is used to transport shells) then a 155. A platform using a 105 can be built to absorb less recoil, so the platform is lighter. So a 105mm howitzer (SPG or towed) and a 155 for heavy forces? It might be a weight and logistics question...
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:105mm or 155mm for Medium Brigades   8/6/2003 6:13:16 PM
105mms don't have the range needed to cover the large operational area envisioned for the SBCT. Only new 105mms like the South African G7 come close, and it weighs nearly as much as the M777. Plus, advanced munitions like Excalibur are being developed for the 155mm.
 
Quote    Reply

Shaka of Carthage    RE:105mm or 155mm for Medium Brigades   8/6/2003 6:19:16 PM
I think the 105mm, since more ammo can be carried. Since these Brigades are suppossed to be initial reaction forces, they will be the only ones there for some point of time. The ability to have extra ammo for the same weight, outweighs any bang or range factor that the 155mm has.
 
Quote    Reply

Shaka of Carthage    RE:105mm or 155mm for Medium Brigades   8/6/2003 6:21:53 PM
Darnit, I forgot this point. Everything I said would be in an ideal world. However, since the real world has other outside factors, it may be simpler for the logistical, maint and training side to have a 155mm round only. Especially, if new round development is only for the 155mm. If thats the case, its not combat efficency that will decide what they get.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    M777   8/7/2003 8:21:22 AM
Just posted on M777. 155MM can shoot SADARM and a whole range of PGM and ICM. 105mm doesn't have the range. If I'm the only game in time for a period of time, give me 155mm. May weigh more and be bigger, but I can hit harder and more precisely. Also, don't forget each Stryker battalion also has 120mm mortars.
 
Quote    Reply

Shaka of Carthage    RE:M777   8/7/2003 3:40:34 PM
I agree with you if I don't have a supply problem. The bigger bang means nothing if there is no ammo. An American medium Brigade 155s, anyone else, 105s.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:M777-Shaka Retort   9/23/2005 6:25:20 PM
Put me in an airborne/light infantry environment that suddenly takes a turn for the worse, and I'll be wanting to reach out 25-30k and touch my opposition with the FULL COMPLEMENT of munitions available only to 155mm systems. Albany Rifles is right, but you missed the main reason-munitions. We've been looking for a light 155mm system from the day we fielded the M198, and now we may have it.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    105mm or 155mm?   9/23/2005 8:11:41 PM
-"If I'm the only game in time for a period of time, give me 155mm. May weigh more and be bigger, but I can hit harder and more precisely. Also, don't forget each Stryker battalion also has 120mm mortars. " ...yet 120mm mortars don't even have the range of 105mm howitzers, even with current PGMs. Did we get stuck on stupid somewhere? The USN, and most "Allied" US-friendly nations have been shooting 5-inch shells for decades. We already know we can pack a PGM into that caliber. Streamline the shells a little better, and there's no reason we couldn't get lighter-weight-than-155-but-heavier-payload-and-greater-range-than-105, even in a piece lighter than the M777, if we use its titanium construction. We already shoot ERGMs and ANSRs past 50 miles (and if we are so keen on a 155mm naval system, why then was ATK even awarded the contract for BTERM, the extended range ANSR?) Seems sensible enough to me that 127mm solves a lot of problems. But then those logistics junkies say no: costs too much to change everything over to a new caliber (regardless of any potential benefits). Guess we'll be using 105mm and 155mm for the next millennium, too.
 
Quote    Reply

seantheaussie    RE:105mm or 155mm?   9/23/2005 11:31:39 PM
1. Don't forget MLRS which cancels out all 155mm range/guided advantages. 2. Any competent enemy will grab/hug? the belt of US troops to avoid US's massive fire support advantage & 105mm can be aimed closer to friendlies.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:105mm or 155mm?   9/24/2005 7:34:25 AM
Meanwhile Aust is officially seeking reduced effect 155mm as well as new HE. Not that this is a new idea. When UK deployed AS90 to Bosnia they took both L15 HE and L19 trg shells with very reduced effect, and had different rules of engagement for each.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:105mm or 155mm?   9/24/2005 5:26:41 PM
-"Meanwhile Aust is officially seeking reduced effect 155mm as well as new HE." Has anyone considered a sub-caliber round for 155mm guns? Doesn't the US have (or under development) a tank gun-fired APDS-type sub-caliber HEAT round useful for extended ranges? Why not develop a sub-caliber carrier round (HE filler or whatever) that can enjoy a somewhat greater range and a reduced payload? We should easily be able to incorporate a guidance system into it, or else what's the use of sending long-range, smaller yield rounds any distance downrange if their CEP is larger than the shell's effective burst range? But then again, here we run into the issue of cost: we may be more favorably served by a guided rocket/missile than a costly guided artillery shell. DARPA contracted with BAe to develop a guided 60mm mortar round (ODAM). Some here have argued that its possibly-reduced warhead may negate its effectiveness. Maybe a few artillery shell and PGM-producing defence contractors need to flex their ingenuity muscles and spend a little of their R&D money on making more PGMs smaller than 120mm mortar shells. Hell, if the Russians can do it with their 115mm gun, and the US had the STAFF round for M68 105mm guns, surely someone out there should be able to develop a 105mm guided arty round with a useful-enough payload and a decent range. If the Italians can do it for their 76mm naval gun, why can't anyone else? Seems to me that if someone came on the market with a 105mm PGM that could impact in a 5-10m CEP, and had a few km extra range over standard 105mm arty shells (say 20-25km overall), a lot of people would be scrambling to buy it up. Could even be a competitor to many 120mm mortar PGMs, especially if its cheaper.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:105mm or 155mm?   9/24/2005 9:10:28 PM
Waht was the STAFF round & M68?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:105mm or 155mm?   9/24/2005 10:55:05 PM
Carl, OK, my bad...I was certain STAFF was a 105mm weapon, but it's 120mm. link The M68 series is the US equivalent of the British Army's 105mm L7 gun. Lying around my mess of a library somewhere is an old ARMOR magazine or Jane's Defence Weekly (maybe Jane's Armour & Artillery Upgrades, even) from the mid-1990s talking about Russian developments of their gun-fired guided anti-tank rounds. From what I recall, they briefly tried to develop one for the 85mm gun, but with the withdrawing of ASU-85s from most units, it was never produced in quantity (to the best of my knowledge.) As of the mid-to-late-1990s, they do have the laser-seeker 9M117 Bastion (AT-10 "Stabber"), capable of being fired from T55s' 100mm guns, and a derivative called 9K116 Basnya that is fired from the BMP-3's 2A70 gun, with the Kastet round being a slight modification that is fired from towed 100mm guns. But these were designed with a maximum range of only about 5km (anti-tank, but would work against fixed positions quite well), not the most ideal for long-range artillery work. Still, -"Alliant Techsystems developed the STAFF round. Proof of principle was demonstrated in 1990." If we had the tech to do that in 1990, certainly the last 15 years of electronics evolution have given us the ability to shrink it down even smaller (guidance and control). We've been firing 70mm MANPADS (Redeye, Stinger) for the last few decades, had 155mm and 127mm laser-guided shells since the 1980s, and even the 81mm MERLIN mortar PGM (millimetric guidance). Surely a 105mm artillery PGM is not out of the question. I don't think it's so much that no one sees any value in such a projectile. I think it's more the fact that no one has offered one yet (meaning, no one has any idea just what level of capabilities such a munition would offer). If we're going to keep 105mm weapons around longer, we might as well exploit technology and make the weapon as formidable as we can.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:105mm or 155mm? - doggtag   9/24/2005 11:09:55 PM
I don't think it's so much that no one sees any value in such a projectile. I think it's more the fact that no one has offered one yet (meaning, no one has any idea just what level of capabilities such a munition would offer). - Doggtag The way us defence contrator types work is to wait for an Operational Requirement Document to be produced by someones military before we go down the route of spending considerable R&D money. Shareholders tend not to like that type of project ;)
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:105mm or 155mm? - doggtag/Seantheaussie retort   10/1/2005 10:46:44 PM
"...1. Don't forget MLRS which cancels out all 155mm range/guided advantages. 2. Any competent enemy will grab/hug? the belt of US troops to avoid US's massive fire support advantage & 105mm can be aimed closer to friendlies." Does MLRS offer an effect like the old M107 HE projo? My recollection of artillery/rocket ammunition seems that payload on the rockets was all DPICM. I want blast effect from HE in many situations. Equally, there are numerous situations where the use of DPICM just isn't a cool idea, particularly delivered by rocketfire from 20-40kms elsewhere. Meanwhile I lose the excellent illumination offered by 155mm systems, as well as the air-burst effect from shell/fuze combos unavailable to MLRS. Range? I don't believe it's an absolutely critical criterion for a 155mm system. When I hear range, I think "counterfire", which is what MLRS was designed for, btw. Our 155mm systems have ALWAYS been the shortest shooters worldwide (well, at least since the M114 series at the end of W.W.II). In some ways, thank goodness. Marginal range on many of our systems has, surprisingly, had much to do with the continuation of a long history of excellent American artillery doctrine. There are certainly many instances where "competent enemy" have tried to grab and hold. Equally, there are many of those instances where they failed, competent or not. I mean, that's sort of the game, isn't it? The question to attacking infantry always is, do you really want to? As an artillery man, I don't always object to placing FPF (final protective fires) targets out 200m+ (danger close)from the MLR. U.S. infantry are traditionally quite well armed w/mortars and numerous automatic wpns., which makes it most uncomfortable for any "competent force" to have a continuous fire 155mm M107HE barrage being fired behind him, as he "hugs" our engaged forces. It sort of makes his committment to the attack irrevocable, thus they MUST overrun our troops or be annihilated. Certainly, heavy groundcover that allows an unobserved approach into a defensive position or to its perimeter is always a dangerous environment for defending infantry, such as Vietnam. Generally, though, forward observers were able to adjust and register their FPFs prior to engagement. That was one of the very first requirements of Company/platoon cdrs, and F.Os upon occupying a night laager, for instance. Give me a lightweight (15,000 lbs. artyengineer?)155mm towed How, 30km range with chg. 9, and my full complement of shell/fuze combinations. That will be fine for our light/medium forces for the next 10-15 years. If they start shooting back with something big, somebody better be shipping S.P. howitzers, 'cause it ain't a "light fight" any longer.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy