The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 7, 2009




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.
 
 
 
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: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
ArtyEngineer    RE:105mm or 155mm? - S-2   10/2/2005 9:09:54 AM
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. - S-2 No Problem, could do that for not much heavier than the M777 at 9300lbs. Putting a 52 cal tube in was on the drawing boards very early on but then the weight was capped at 9800lbs for teh MV 22 lift requirement we neglected it, however a lot of computer analysis of the structure and recoil system done based on the loads from a 52 cal tube firing MACS zone 6 (Which nolonger exists with the demise of crusader)
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:105mm or 155mm for Medium Brigades   10/2/2005 9:54:01 PM
Yeah, my "very bad". My dream direct support howitzer is basically the M198, which is too heavy, as is its prime mover. It also lacks about six thousand meters of range at max charge without RAP.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:105mm or 155mm for Medium Brigades - S-2   10/3/2005 1:12:47 AM
This is really sad I know, there are better ways to spend a Sunday afternoon, but based on your question I fired up Pro E and Ansys and did some design and FEA stuff based around the M777 configuration. If I had some titanium blanks, a machince shop and a good machinist I could integrate a crusader tube into the m777 within the week. Couldnt fire MACS zone 6 however, and there is no way the M100 series glass and iron sights would survive the G loads. But it just so happens I have a TALIN HG inertial navigatio unit and associated dispalys for Guner, A gunner and Section Chief. If you got some cash to spare you can have your howitzer ;) By the way, why hvae the Marine Corp gone to that Monster Truck of the MTVR as the prime mover for teh M198, total overkill, and from what I hear because that truck can go over more that the M900 series the Arty guys seem to think they can take their M198's over more severe terrain to the extreme detriment of their howitzers.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:105mm or 155mm?   10/3/2005 3:51:06 AM
I'd agree that the importance of range has been overstated, popular media guff about 'being outranged by en arty' was never a serious problem in the 20th century. A few km either way really made no difference in a CB battle, not least because effective CB meant concentrating several batteries onto one HB, it wasn't a 'one on one' affair. However, this obscures a few points. During the 20th C tgt acquisition was limited in range/timeliness (and really only located en arty), add to this accuracy and consistency falls off at long range and there were seldom if ever enough guns for massed fire power at long range. This means that long range really only mattered when the battlefield was particularly spacious and/or there was a need to concentrate fire from many batteries when you didn't have a large number. The great leap forward has been tgt acquisition and the emerging network capability that allows timely multi-source data synergy. This is opening up the depth battle for a far wider variety of arty tgts. For example in 2003 a UK 105mm DS bty attacked a corps HQ! And why not, the key elm of 'DS' is the provision of obs & LOs, given effective control arrangements guns should to engage anything within range iaw comd's intent. All this means that range is becoming important. Added to this improvements in accuracy and consistency of dumb shells (better computation and data, MV prediction) and the less dumb (at a price) that makes long range fire a better proposition by reducing the number of rounds to achieve a particular level of effect. Fighting an effective depth battle takes an immense load of the close combat forces. MRLs are superb for delivering a heavy load in a short time. Problem is they have a long minumum range, are constrained in mountains, have a low rate of fire (eg at least several minutes between lnchr loads, more if they have to displace each time), are significantly inaccurate (very susceptable to low level wind at launch, although this is fixable) and inconsistent, and then for current bomblets there's the UXB issue. The last few mean collateral damage is an issue that can turn into a legal problem. However, guided rockets solve some of these difficulties and make MRLs much more useable. Nevertheless, for the forseeable future a mix of guns and MRLs is needed to compliment each other, with a mix of ammo types. Some targets are going to need munitions that rely a probability spread because not every target and effect can be defined as a point target for destruction. However, range does now matter so that arty can impose their comd's will on the en that can now be acquired in depth, and the depth battle will shape the close battle.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:105mm or 155mm? Shaping the Battlefield/Neutralizer   10/3/2005 8:22:58 AM
"... that can now be acquired in depth, and the depth battle will shape the close battle." I hardly disagree, in that range can only enhance our present, tremendous capability. However, my emphasis is on artillery that is sufficiently mobile to fight within the full range of the battlefield, displacing when necessary in response to the changes of a fluid battle environment. Our targeting and survey capabilities, coupled with reliable battlefield metro have largely eliminated the need to register fires (wastes rounds), or to adjust fires to targets. "Fire For Effect" missions are the routine at battery level. Most bn. massed missions, or higher, are invariably TOTs, as the conditions that allow a battery to avoid adjusting fires are the same at the DIVARTY/CORPSARTY level. Thus, we mass all the time. Our physical and electronic agility in a high intensity environment mitigates strongly against a paramount criteria for range. We've routinely trained to perform artillery raids on deep tgts., largely a coordination measures exercise at this point with the manuever screws, but these missions serve as excellent examples why our agility leads to the economical, focused, discrete fires that we know can be so devastating now. Your example of a U.K. 105mm btry. attacking a corps H.Q. shows that range was less important than timely and accurate targeting, and the rapid transmission of the call for fire. With that, a 105mm btry. negates a corps H.Q., and all the associated downstream C3I dislocation for the attacked unit. Your correct on the continuing need for a robust mix of cannon and rocket/missle fires. In some respects, MLRS is a godsend. On most battlefields, it's ability when coupled with AN/TPSQ-36/37 FireFinder to almost singlehandedly fight the counterfire battle is stunning. Most of this massing fires stuff falls back to the four traditional missions of American field artillery fires, 1.) Direct Support 2.) General Support 3.) General Support/Reinforcing 4.) Reinforcing As you know, the artillery cdr. fights his battle based upon a incredible range of variables and critical imput, most importantly his commander's intent. The deep and close battles are now one and the same, in many respects, with artillery forces routinely deploying both into, and out of the Covering Force Area and Main Battle Area. Regardless of weapon ranges, units not possessing the requisite agility, target acquisition, battlefield survey/metro, and professionalism will not survive long. Very cool moniker, by the way. Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:105mm or 155mm? Shaping the Battlefield/Neutralizer   10/3/2005 8:36:25 PM
" emerging network capability that allows timely multi-source data synergy" You are refering to the FDC system of the US Army artillery, and its British and French equivalents, developed in the 1920s? As you say the more things change .....
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:105mm or 155mm? Shaping the Battlefield/Neutralizer   10/4/2005 8:21:23 AM
My key point is that while in the past range was 'nice to have', enhancement of tgt acquisition capabilities is now making it much more important. Coupled with this is that the choice of possible tgts is also opening up, whereas in the past (ignoring SVN H&I and WW1)it has mostly been against HBs because they were the easiest to find. Effects based operations are also leading to greater emphasis against depth tgts. It's true that you can gain range by deploying forwards, and as the battlefield becomes less dense it's easier to do so. However, it's always less than an ideal solution, having the range is better and you can still raid forward to reach even deeper. Accuracy at long ranges started improving significantly with the introduction of the modified point mass model with short step integration on field computers, not to mention better met at higher altitudes. It should get better again with the introduction of battlefield met models that will provide data points more relevant to the longer and higher trajectories. I'm not sure that survey has improved greatly in accuracy but getting accurate survey started getting much faster with PADS. Consistency and accuracy to a lesser extent are improved by a MV rdr on every gun and will improve again with rd to rd MV prediction (which roughly halves the PEr). Automated laying also improves consistency. Of course guided projectiles also have great potential. Systematic exploitation of all source intelligence has always ben important, although I'm not sure that it's ever been a great strenght of FDCs, but perhaps I'm using that term to narrowly. However, the CB staffs from about 1917 onwards got quite good at it. The moden significance is that it's now realtime, no more 12 hrs or more turnaround from tasking air photos to getting results. This means that whereas in the past fixed targets were the main tgt option (after HBs), now tgts that move fairly frequently are a realistic propostion without too much inspired hope that they remained in the same place. I'm have serious doubts about the relevance of the traditional tac msns (DS, GS, R, GSR), they may have some relevance for assigning obsn and LOs, but as a means of controlling fire I am unconvinced. If the comd establishes effects priorities then it really doesn't matter which guns or lnchrs are used, providing they have appropraite ammo and can reach the tgt. It is basically a matter of the comd allocating resources and one of the resources is allotment authority over guns, which is changed as the tac sit evolves.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:105mm or 155mm? Shaping the Battlefield/Neutralizer   10/4/2005 10:22:28 PM
I'll go along with that. Particularly to point about range. The true tactical mobility of artillery is its range. The greater effective range the greater its real mobility. And, as N writes the largest hindrance to exploitation of this range has been target information. The ability to identify and locate large numbers of high value targets in a very short time and kill or nuetralize those targets imeadiately by the use of fires from all the artillery within thirty or fourty km seems a worthy goal. And, as soon as you can give me practical artillery with fifty or sixty km range I'll take that too, thank you.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:105mm or 155mm? Shaping the Battlefield/Neutralizer   10/4/2005 11:00:46 PM
My initial response to Neutralizer indicated my feelings about range in the first sentence. A few comments- 1.)PADS was revolutionary. Your correct. Battlefield survey was accurate as long as you had a known point in the vicinity. However, it was slow, though nice to know how to transfer direction as a cannoner. It was the speed that was so cool. 2. You may be correct with the trad. tac. msns. of the F.A. in that it becomes a resource allocation issue to some extent. However, DS fires remain paramount to manuever elements in offensive operations, and clearly when engaged, regardless of their posture. GSR/Reinf. fires lend emphasis to the commanders intent by virtue of the reinforced unit's tgt. list. As for mobility through fires, I'm not too certain. Unless your fires can suppress an opposing unit's counterfire on your position, you'd better displace. Since range is always desired, then mobility optimizes range, as you suggested. In truth, you really can't be field artillery without the abilities to move, shoot, and communicate. That ol' adage is as true as ever, and it's what makes F.A. such a valuable and unique asset to the manuever cdr.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    S-2, Carl S, Neutraliser, Thanks   10/5/2005 12:39:27 AM
for keeping the Arty section of this forum the most intelligent and educational part. It is a good thing that arty isnt considered cool or sexy enough for the popular masses, it keeps the idiots and trolls away from this section of the site.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:S-2, Carl S, Neutraliser, Thanks   10/5/2005 1:45:43 AM
Hey! Whatever it takes to be boring. Yer welcome. Now how bout that new MV test gear? Hot stuff eh?
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:S-2, Carl S, Neutraliser, Thanks   10/5/2005 3:14:42 AM
You talking about the M94? Havent seen it yet, but from reading about it the only thing it claims to be able to do over teh M90 is in determining Muzzle velocitys for Rocket assist and Base bleed Projos, Now from all the testing I have been involved in, for Rocket assist projectiles, Rocket On/Off times have much more impact that a few meters per second variation in MV. I thought the M90 did quite a sufficient Job, or are you talking about something else?
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:ArtyEngineer/Question on Basic Loads?   10/5/2005 7:10:32 AM
Hey, artyengineer! It sounds like you've spent a lot of recent time putting rounds downrange with some 155mm gun sections. How much of their basic load these days is composed of RAP/Base Bleed ammo, allowing for available stocks in theatre?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Shedding some light on range requirements   10/5/2005 7:53:20 AM
-"And, as soon as you can give me practical artillery with fifty or sixty km range I'll take that too, thank you. " link "In September 2001, the G6 achieved a range of 53.6km using the new Velocity enhanced Long Range Projectile (V-LAP) and the new M64 bi-modular charge system. V-LAP combines base bleed and rocket motor technology, while the M64 charge system increases muzzle velocity to 910m/s VLAP is part of Denel?s new Assegai range of 155mm ammunition. The 155 mm main gun is equipped with a 45 calibre auto-frettaged barrel, a semi-automatic screw type breech and an electrical trigger mechanism. The gun is fitted with a single baffle open type muzzle brake and a reinforced epoxy resin fume extractor." ---------- Denel seems intent on hitting 70km (from 52-cal barrels) in future versions of the VLAP (if not already there now). Seems the UK already tested them in the AS90: link "AS90 has also test fired the new Denel Assegai family of 155mm ammunition which has completed development and includes a Velocity Enhanced Long-range Artillery Projectile (VLAP)." --------- So if anyone can get accurate long range targetting to exploit the VLAP's range, I would think the UK could do it (especially when collaborating with US recce assets.) You want range, ask and ye shall receive. ArtyEngineer and Neutralizer, since you guys seem to be our resident experts in this area (giving credit where credit is due, no sarcasm intended), perhaps could you guys maybe enlighten us on why the US has abandoned (with the loss of Crusader) reasonably long ranged tube artillery, especially when so many others are pursuing it? Are we sold on relying solely on more-expensive assisted PGMs to get additional reach for our guns, solely as a weight-savings issue for the launcher, and then relying mostly on MLRS and air assets to reach more distant targets? I too am confused about, when so many others are trying to get to greater ranges, why is the US (Army) sold on procuring a system with an even shorter barrel (38-cal?) that barely gets 2/3 the range (unassisted) as almost everyone else's 45- and 52-cal tube artillery (including most of the people we foresee as future possible adversaries). I'm with Carl on this one: regardless of whether we (US) have superior target location and other capable assets to engage them, I'd rather WE have the capability to out-range our adversaries, rather than the other way around. Good thing no one else bought up Iraq's Al Fao concept, a 210mm Bull-inspired Iraqi development resembling the South African G6 Rhino: this beast could reach 57.34km with ERFB-BB shells (max elevation was 55 degrees). I'd wager a VLAP in this caliber would easily cross 70km now, with 80km possible eventually (greater than MLRS, I might add). A wheeled 6x6 vehicle topping in at about 48 metric tonnes, it wasn't much more than Crusader's physical dimensions: length oa: 15m width: 3.5m height: 3.6m max road speed: 90km/h elevation: 0 to +55 degrees traverse: 40 degrees left/right Things start getting that big, and the obvious choice for rocket systems becomes obvious (although, for the same amount of volume, you can have more than twice as many artillery shells in the same space in your resupply vehicles as opposed to much-longer-body-length artillery rockets. This could be a key factor in just how much artillery support you can give your forces, and as the US is learning, economy of war is a necessity. History shows that wars are often won by who has the biggest purse, not the largest sword.) One last thing: not being an engineer myself (didn't have the brainpower for higher math), what the heck does "auto-frettaged" mean when talking about barrel construction? I've seen this term all over, and online dictionaries aren't configured for a lot of specific engineering terms. So someone please define it for me?
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Shedding some light on range requirements   10/5/2005 8:25:16 AM
Can't speak specifically about crusader, but the 52 cal barrels seem to wear somewhat rapidly and there's a compatibility problem with shells (at least at top charge), new driving bands are needed. The other issue is more fundamental, standard ammo and standard ballistics. Countries like US and UK are very wary of putting themselves at the mercy of a foreign vendor who's primary purpose is to lock them in to a gun and ammo combination to which they own the IPR. The US is even more cautious than the Brits. All these odd non NATO standard guns and ammo just aren't going to cut the mustard. Even the Swedish Archer has a 52 cal barrel, but a 25 l chamber to enable it to fire heavier shells! US and UK seem to have concluded that for the moment they can get extra range thru extended range ammo with existing 39 cal barrels. You also have to consider shell lethality, cargo payload, and the move to insensitive munitions. When you factor these in some of the non NATO stuff doesn't look so hot. Remember, even the French have now come to the 'standard' party!
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  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