The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 21, 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
S-2    RE:Fire Support Measures-Carl S/Neutralizer   10/8/2005 6:24:08 PM
I always have thought that the manuever cdr (bn, bde, div, corps) area of influence was directly related to the range of the organic direct/indirect systems available to service tgts, as well as the estimated time for the anticipated arrival into the engagement areas of those targets, i.e, a bde. cdr. would service those targets expected to arrive into his area of interest within the next twelve hours of battle, given movement rates. Equally, a commander's area of influence related to those tgts. beyond the organic means of the manuever force, and thus were nominated to the next higher command echelon. Thus, wouldn't it be most efficient to attack those targets beyond the Div/Corps area of interest through long range rocketfires, artillery raids, Army/Marine attack aviation, and U.S.A.F. BAI resources? Too, doesn't the Corps FSCL (Fire Support Coord. Line) serve as the de facto demarkation between the Corps area of interest vs. influence, thus also between Army/Marine fires (to include Naval gunfire) and U.S.A.F. All fires within the FSCL should be provided only at the behest of the gaining manuever commander, while BAI, falling beyond the FSCL, becomes the air commander's area of interest. Manuever resources such as artillery raids, army attack aviation, surface to surface rocket fires, and naval gunfire may supplement his resources when available. I'd be very interested in your comments.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Fire Support Measures-Carl S/Neutralizer   10/9/2005 2:42:11 AM
A decade ago I'd say you were more or less right with that. But even then, at least in the circles I trained with, the FSC measures were begaining to be taken less seriously. Another factor is that as Marines many of us did not draw a sharp line between the different systems you mention. When I use the term artillery I'm automaticly including long range weapons like MLRS. In the mid 1990s we were taking the traditional fire support coordination measures less seriously. Few were going into hysterics over minor issues of the FSCL as seemed to often happen in the 1980s. We were already contemplating broad manuvers of the same scale as in OIF and comparable speeds. There were a lot of offhand discussions and ad hoc experiments in more effcient methods for controling battlefield fires. In the artillery at least we had got a grip on the earlier generation of networked communications and at least some of us were looking at the possibilities. The possibilites of the new intel gathering methods (drones, RPV, UAV or whatever you want to call them) were becoming apparent. In OIF the coordinating measures did not look like the traditional methods, and neither did the way the Marines and the US Army fought their way to Bagdad. The battle as it was fought defined the ground forces area of influence with depth vastly larger than usually contemplated. I strongly suspect that were I still in service in a tactical or operational role I'd not be thinking of a FsCL or in any of the traditional language or concepts mentioned in the previous post.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Fire Support Measures-Carl S/Neutralizer   10/9/2005 7:39:27 AM
The origin of the FSCL was the 'bomb line' and the purpose was to ensure that friendly forces didn't get attacked by own aircraft on their own initiative(we'll pass on how effective it was!). If you know where everyone is then the FSCL is not needed, similarly if air only attacks specified and cleared tgts it isn't either. If you subscribe to manouevre theory, then the key qualities are cohesion and tempo. This means maintaining your own and denying them to the enemy. Targets anywhere have to be selected with these outcomes in mind, the tricky bit is translating these desired outcomes into actions to produce contributory effects. The most obvious point is that close combat reduces your own tempo, therefore it should be avoided or the enemy's capability to engage in effective and efficient close combat reduced, eg by applying 'D' word effects (destroy, delay, disrupt, dislocate, distract, deny), fix, harass, neutralise, etc (all these words have meaning, although I think only a few have made AAP-6 to date) throughout the battlespace where they will contribute most to desired outcomes. The corollory of this is that manouevre operations should seek to not need to indulge in close combat, at least not on any significant scale. In other words the main action is in depth. One point about effects based manouevre ops is that 'destroy' is only one option, and I'm not sure that arty (or air) effects planning has come fully to grips with how to translate some of the others into rds on the ground! Of course one example is arty Illum, and its soft effect of 'we are being seen' (thinks the bad guys), the Brits worked it in Sierra Leone, Kosova and Basra (5km linear through the night!).
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Fire Support Measures-Carl S/Neutralizer   10/10/2005 9:15:04 PM
"close combat reduces your own tempo, therefore it should be avoided or the enemy's capability to engage in effective and efficient close combat reduced," That little line is why I've prefered fire support missions on the enemy manuver battalions. Keeping them suppressed or nuetralized allows ones own manuver freedom. While fire support on the enemys HQ or key support elements is usefull and cant be neglected, ones own combat groups blowing through those HQ & support units is much more destructive.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Fire Support Measures-Carl S/Neutralizer   10/11/2005 6:32:58 AM
But start the process of disruption and dislocation as early as you can, plus some destruction all reduces cohesion. Suppressing and neut is only needed when en close cbt (or other forces) are in a position to interfere with you. The rest of the time you reduce their cohesion and their tempo by engaging tgts for those purposes. Do it right and they need a lot less suppressing and neut.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Digger    RE:Fire Support Measures-Carl S/Neutralizer   12/5/2005 5:27:57 AM
Just out of interest, the Australian Army released it's requirements for Land 17, our Artillery replacement program a bit earlier this year. It wants to standardise on 155mm calibre (meaning, presumably the end of our using 105mm L118/9 towed guns and the remaining M2A2's in reserve units). All contenders must have high level's of mobility and crew protection capbilities (effectively meaning SPG's only). In addition we are acquiring new 155mm ammunition prior to that for our M198 guns, namely: Improved conventional munitions (ie: cargo rounds) and possibly new precision guided rounds to replace or at least enhance our Copperhead capabilities. I would not be at all surprised to see Excalibur chosen under this project... I'll post more Australian Arty news when it comes to hand. Cheers.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Fire Support Measures...   12/5/2005 12:50:03 PM
So sue me, but,... I still think it's a cryin' shame that the whole NATO commonality thing went so international. So many promising mid-range calibers (between 105 and 155) were lost because of it. One wonders where we'd have gotten if the 120mm (shades of the Swedish Karin/Karelin/CD80 and British naval 4.7") was kept around longer and developed further, or the Brits' 5.5" gun (S Africa used these probably longer than anyone, and it was one of the firm-that-became-LIW's first attempts at building and developing ammunition for locally). Both of these had greater range than the 105, yet more "user friendly" (prolonged hand-loading) ammuntion that hit harder than 105s. And it still surprises me that the USN never pushed the USMC (and others who bought ex-USN hardware) into adopting a 127mm weapon compatible with naval ammunition. For that matter, the RN opted for the 4.5" gun, which also would've offered a bit more punch and range than the 105mm (although some of the late-war- WW2- RN 4.7" guns had performances closely matching many naval guns up to 15cm). So now we're stuck with just two choices: light 105 with relatively weak range and shell lethality, or heavier and longer-ranged 155mm which takes up more room which means we end up with less of them per cubic volume of logistical space (like that argument/debate over 5.56 being better than 7.62...?). Of course, there's the third option of rocket artillery, but here again the only real NATO-standard rocket is the 227mm MLRS family, not something you'll carry a lot of into the field, as compared to how many arty shells you can move in the same amount of space. Ain't politics wonderful? Screw what might work better for the troops all in the name of playing the buddy-nation commonality game. This is why many nations have been losing their technical edges: they've depended on foreign designs for so long, they've lost much local technical expertise, and they end up paying for it when they have to cough up booku bucks to modify a system to suit their individual requirements, rather than having designed it from the ground up with what they wanted in it in the first place. At least I'm glad Sweden took so long to fully embrace NATO standards. We'd have lost a lot of interesting ideas (and capable systems) over the years if they'd hopped on the NATO bandwagon sooner.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Fire Support Measures...   12/5/2005 1:47:35 PM
"So now we're stuck with just two choices: light 105 with relatively weak range and shell lethality" I think you are being a tad harsh on the 105mm gun - it is not that relatively weak. In WWII (and much latter for nations such as South Africa) the 25 pounder gun (84mm) was one of the more sucessful designes, as was the german 88mm, and the various 75mm pack howitzers. I do think their a place for mid caliber guns though, I think the D-46 130mm guns has to have been one of if not the most successful design of recent decades.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Fire Support Measures...   12/5/2005 2:34:35 PM
Yimmy, I personally have no grudge against the 105... it's just that a key point in the whole 105 vs 155 argument/debate seems to center around the 105 not having enough punch (heck no, not when a 155 typically weighs 3 times as much!) If the choice was mine and I needed a self-propelled weapon that was light and agile, I'd go for that LEO 105 they trialled on a LAV 3 (something Australian has plenty of, in ASLAV form. I would at least think the 6x6 could sport an L118/9 shades of a Russky 122mm M1974: if the 8x8 LAV hull can fire the high-performance LEO, then the 6x6 should at least be able to carry the M118/9 howitzer, giving the gun mobility and sharing commonality with towed units.) But with no one having tried to develop a 105mm artillery PGM yet, perhaps precision is the goal. Then I'd try fitting the 120mm turret mortar (Saudi fits them on 8x8s...) to allow PGM shots. If I had to use 105 with no other choice, then I'd tender a request to all interested defense contractors to create a PGM for the 105. Of course, I think that a 120mm CD80-type weapon could safely be fired from an aft-turret 8x8 LAV (heavier Piranha IV) hull if it can handle the high-performance LEO weapon, although the Swedes used that big honkin' Volvo 6x6 articulated chassis. Can't say I'd see Australia opting in the 130mm direction...although they could use such a weapon program to bolster ties with India: they still use it in considerable numbers (and Russia had a cool mobile coastal gun on an 8x8 chassis using the weapon, although it was considerably larger than a Piranha-family 8x8). As for mobile 155mm guns: I still think that Supacat portee' model that can drop off the gun and go get more ammo on a pallet seems like a very ideal way to go (as it uses the M777, you don't always need to use the Supacat vehicle to tote it around, although its lightweight suggests that would be the most favorable means of transporting it.)
 
Quote    Reply

ambush    RE:105mm or 155mm for Medium Brigades   12/5/2005 9:09:48 PM
Taking this back to what would be best for the Stryker/Medium Brigade. First I will state for the record I am Marine Grunt by training and intellect not a gun bunny. However I have been involved a little in the logistics end of artillery on a MEU level and I think logistics is very important here. For a large conventional ground force such as an Armored Division range and ?throw weight ? can assume more importance than the logistics burden of the artillery pieces and ammo. I think that the Stryker/Medium Brigade is not really a rapid deployment force. The C-130 and 96 hours requirements have been largely reduced and/or eliminated so the lift requirement is not as important as a for Airborne Task Force or MEU. So I do not think that 155s present the logistics obstacles and would be a good choice for the Brigade. If you look at this from the perspective of a Marine Expeditionary Unit or Airborne/Air Assault TF the logistics requirement become more important particularly in terms of lift and transport. For both MEU and Airborne TF Commander getting as much of your force ashore/on the ground as rapidly as possible with as much supplies/ammo as possible is critical. Your ability to re-supply is much more vulnerable to interruption by enemy action or weather. I dug up some of the old data (I am old also) but it is still relevant particularly when you consider ammo weight/size: Using CH-53D helicopters as your lift asset, M-101A1 105s and M-114, 155s. For 14 helicopter lifts I could move a 6-gun battery of M101s with crews and 600 to 800 rounds of ammunition (depending on how it was palletized and carried). 14 lifts would also allow me to move a 6-gun battery of 155s with crews the same distance with only about 396 rounds of ammo. This does nto include prime movers. Even using CH-53Es, M-119 and M-777s would not change the equation much particularly if you include prime movers and ammo haulers in the mix. I have always felt that the Marine Corps made a mistake by going to the M-198 as its exclusive artillery piece. It should have kept 105s for the Artillery regiments to support the MEUs along with the acquisition of 120mm mortars (a battery of each per MEU). It should have the kept the Field Artillery Groups for 155s and HIMARS to support larger sustained MAGTF ops. Granted the 155s give more range and firepower but organizations like and MEU have organic airpower and Naval Gunfire to offset this. As a personnel prejudice I also like the fact you can drop 105s closer to the good guys when the bad guys are in the wire. There is also the collateral damage thing in urban situations. For all the talk of precision ammo how many rounds out of your basic load would be precision rounds considering logistics and costs Of course if you look at the Medium Brigade as a peacekeeping unit create for situation like the Balkans then you might want 105s.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:105mm or 155mm for Medium Brigades   12/6/2005 6:23:15 AM
I'd also agree that 'standardising' on 105mm and 155mm has a lot of downside. I've long thought that something in the 115mm - 130mm is probably the way to go. The trouble with 105mm is that while you can give it reasonble HE capacity, its cargo capability is very limited. Of course 105mm standardisation is fiction, there's nothing standard about UK L118 except calling it 105 mm! Interestingly it appears that in the 1950s UK was looking to replace 25 pr with a 110mm. Of course the new Swedish 155mm Archer isn't standard either although they seem to have abandoned their cart case design ammo, it's chamber is a non standard 25 litres. HE wise 105mm does now give effects on a par with 155mm HE M107, not just Leo (which UK rejected after comparitive trial). Of course for peace support you can have reduced lethality 155mm which is part of the the Aust requirement, and the reason UK deployed 155mm training shells in Bosnia/Kosova, with less restrictive RoE than L15 (not surprising since L15 is on a par with 203mm M106). However, size is a factor, again in Bosnia UK tactically deployed 105mm in shipping containers for OPSEC reasons. Not a trick that can be used with SPs (takes me back to deploying L5 105mm PH in the back of a M113!). This raises the whole question as to why any army would want to go all SP in the modern era, frankly not very good military thinking. It's also clear from UK decision making that modern heli assault distances, whether from ship or ground based air manouvre, are too great to sustain 155mm.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Light Artillery for the Marines   12/6/2005 10:01:12 PM
The M101s were around for quite a while. Back in 1991 my battery parked four M198s & choose four M101s from a warehouse sheltering about fifty of them. In the late 1990s one of my accquantances witnessed a battery training with the M101s, also at Camp Pendelton. Since then I've heard rumors the old guns are still there. Last summer It was announced the Marines were seeking funds to purchase 50+ 120mm mortars (rifled tube models, not the old style smooth bore).
 
Quote    Reply

ambush    RE:Light Artillery for the Marines   12/7/2005 12:41:17 PM
I think the Corps may have (or had) a battery of 105s still active for just in case situations whenit wnet ot all M-198s. I know the Corps is looking at 120mm mortars as part of its Expeditionary Fire Support System (EFSS). The Corps fire support setup is going through a big change with the M777, HIMARS and 120mm mortars. There is even talk of adding 105s (M-119s) to the mix. When I first joined the Corps they had tubes running from 105s to the SP 175s and 8inch. All the SP stuff was in the Field Artillery Groups (FAGs) under the old Force Troops organization and the towed stuff was in Artillery regiments under Division. I think the plan for the HIMARS is to put them in the reserves.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    Carl S & Ambush   12/7/2005 7:06:34 PM
In your time in the Marine Corp Arty did you ever run across Gunny/Top/Master Guns Pearson at any point in time. The 120 Mortar thing is called Dragon Fire, it is a very strange looking little piece of equipment!!!!!
 
Quote    Reply

ambush    RE:Carl S & Ambush   12/7/2005 9:40:04 PM
Sorry, I didn't knwo the guy. I know that Dragonfire was one of the systems under consideration as was the Army's M120.
 
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