Rather than filling up other posts comments with discussions on artillery, loitering munitions etc can we just use this one for now?
This will be part of the ‘Future of’ series but everyone seems keen to crack on with the discussion.
So a few talking points to start the ball rolling…
- Is 105/155 the right mix, what about a single intermediate calibre
- Do we need traditional armoured self propelled system like AS90 anymore
- Where do mortars fit in, is there a case, for example, for a 120mm and if so Infantry or Artillery
- The bunfight between RA/AAC and RAF for extended range attack
- The role of sythetic training systems
- Counter battery fires, or more likely counter rocket and mortar fire, do we have the right equipment mix
- Where does naval Gunfire and land attack fit into the matrix
- Are we going precision crazy and ignoring the utility of flattening grid squares
- How can indirect fires support a larger area of operation, is longer range or greater mobility the answer
- How can we organise direction and management of indirect fires, is it a recce or RA task
- What about UAV’s and CAS
- What about the impact of greater urbanisation
- What about rockets, is there a case for a smaller round
- Loitering munitions, a decade too late or armed UAV replacement
In your own time…
There has been an effort at a self propelled 120mm before, mounted on a Warrior IIRC.
Loitering munitions, especially non recoverable ones are absurd.
If the budget had allowed the UK would have moved to 155mm only.
Watchkeeper really should have LMM- use the cash from cancelling the silly Fireshadow.
If the UK is to stick with a heavy armoured force it needs AS90 or an equivalent.
Counter-battery, UK has proven outstanding, hopefully centurion will be retained and the new counter-battery radar will be procured. The combination of sensor, defensive system and retaliatory fire proved very effective in Iraq.
Urbanisation; if we are going to care about civilians it needs precision.
with a difference of 1300kgs (1317kg to be exact) is it not time to bin light gun in favour of the m777, it shares ammo with AS90 therefore easing supply lines,more choice of shells (ie excaliber) ammo orders etc.
not much bigger in size either, 3ft when in travel mode. barrels built in UK, supporting our industry blah blah!
(edited to add, bugger bob got in first about 155mm which nulls my post)
ah what the hell i’ll do another, AS90 is being reduced quite dramatically. Now somewhere this week i read that chile need to upgrade their old and bold M109 SPH’s could we ride out the poltical storm (if there was one) and flog some AS90′s using the money to fund purchase of M777′s I hate to say the forbidden sentence but they are airportable, to the battlefield and around it, couple it with a decent tractor (RG35 6×6 for me, would hold all the gun crew comfortably,or something that goes under chinook) feasible?
ps my mad idea on deturreting the AS90 for a RA fire support vehicle (see cvrt 2.0 thread) came from looking at the paladin support vehicle and man you could have a serious party in there! do they really need a manned 30mm turret? nah!)
If a loitering device is a munition, then I don’t want it back.
I think it a silly idea. Once launched you have to crash it, you can only put your eyes into the air if you have somewhere safe to ditch the munition and you can only go over the horizon if you expend two or have a relay in place.
Just remember that although M777 may be less than a ton and a half heavier than a light gun, the ammunition will weigh considerably more.
I wonder if the time has now come for rocket based artillery to take over. The launchers are much lighter than guns and can be made mobile on a relatively cheap wheeled platform and it’s a heck of a lot easier to build a guidance system for a non-rotating round that doesn’t pull several thousand G’s at launch.
I think there is a lot of hype on 155m lightweight and the 105mm light gun is a magnificent system
A LW 155 is only 1.3t heavier than a 105.
That’s heavier than my car. Another way of putting it is that the 155mm is 70% heavier than the 105. Something like 80 shells, or quarter of an hour of rapid fire, is the difference between the two guns.
I think I am with you on the light gun V M777.
The 105 could be replaced by 120 mm morters the vehicles / weapons rounds exist to do this in conjunction with the M777 Commonality here we come
105mm gets the job done, it has also received a bunch of upgrades (and there is more that could be done) which is why it is still there, but 155mm will fire a bigger shell further. Ammunition is heavy whatever and will need to be transported by vehicle- might as well have it a bit heavier. However, lightweight 155mm is just not a priority, its not a capability gap and the performance improvement would not be mind blowing. That said, it is kind of depressing that Vickers first unveiled the Ultralight Field Howitzer (as it was known then) back in the late 1980s and the UK has never bought it. On the subject of history, the AS90 turret was derived from a Vickers design called GBT, that was itself derived from the UK work on the failed SP70 project, alongside GBT Vickers also offered a GBN which was basically the GBT 155mm for warships, obviously it never went anywhere but basically what I am saying is that in the late 1980s Vickers offered a complete family of 155mm weapons- naval, light and self-propelled.
Light gun can NOT be replaced by mortars, one of the upgrades it has had is to provide direct fire capability- you just can not do that with mortars. Mortars have their place, but replacing the light field gun is not it.
The light gun a magnificent system. But for shorter ranges would a long barreled 120mm recoiling breach loading morter do?
Not necessarily wedded to any answer and can confess family connections to light gun on my part.
IXION,
See above, can’t do direct fire, 105mm can.
The term “fires” grates. It’s a horrible Americanism. Artillery does not light fires.
Now that is off my chest.
Why would you need a 120mm mortar when Light Gun is very effective? Closer in 81mm mortars are accurate and powerful.
The thing with systems like MLRS is deconfliction with airspace. And indeed a lot of other artillery systems. In a busy airspace that can be a big problem.
sorry Phil, I am usually with you on those horrible americanisms but it seems to be the in vogue word, like warfighter
RE: Intermediate round. The Russians have (had?) 122mm howitzers and 130mm guns; would a dual purpose 120-127mm gun for both tank and artillery be possible?
Going even further, could you combine the two, the old artank concept? This article really goes too far with AAA but is interesting;
http://www.g2mil.com/artank.htm
The turret needed for full 80+ elevation, 360 degree may be too big but if the engine were forward mounted, could the gun elevate further than the usual 20 degrees if pointing forward? 45 degrees would allow maximum range at least.
RE: NGFS – just finished reading Future British surface fleet by DK Brown; he is dubious about the effectiveness of guns in this role and suggests add-on MBRL instead.
He does suggest the idea of a ROF 105mm tank gun for patrol craft, with its accuracy and ability to destroy a terrorist launch with one shot. Modern version with 120mm tank gun?
RE: bunfight – reorganise in to new role divisions? ISR/cavalry, deep strike,close combat, logistics? Joint commands?
HI GJ,
I’ll have to wait for tomorrow to jump into this one, but from the first glimpse through, re
“RE: Intermediate round. The Russians have (had?) 122mm howitzers and 130mm guns; would a dual purpose 120-127mm gun for both tank and artillery be possible?”
- the 122 is light enough for the SPG to be fully amphibious
- the 130 had such a long range (30km) that Americans in Vietnam had to have 155s to do counter-battery
Don’t have the answer to your question. Italians have worked on the interim caliber based on the Volcano rounds initially developed for the navy. Lately I read that army, however, wants them in 155 (I guess to be able to use cheaper, volume products when a niche one is not required to do the job).
Bob Morters can do direct fire. Gun morter systens have existed with since the 60s?
Although not many have made it into service which perhaps says something…
The problem with the ARTank idea is that fire control ammo choice etc make it direct fire weapon system.
Tank and artillery sharing the same ammo would be useful but are we ready to reduce the size of our main artillery or increase the size of our tank guns? The 127 mm navel gun has been kicked arround on paper for both roles but would I suggest be a bit ‘light on shell ‘ for true heavy artillery.
Although the south african LEO system at 105mm claims its shell has as big a bang as WW2 155mm.
Not bene shot at by both for comparative testing myself though..
Doesn’t the issue of the light gun’s direct-fire sight mod come down to the fact that you can only elevate the gun so far, so without direct fire you have a considerable minimum range – something that is not a problem with a mortar that can fire at much steeper angles to close the range. A characteristic of a gun, but not really an effective argument for keeping the guns.
There are also vehicle mounted breech loading 120mm mortars that can provide direct fire, and fire with suppressed barrels.
I think I’ll echo Pete A’s call; what about some kind of light rocket system?
Something that could be driven to a firing point and literally set up in seconds, firing off a big arse barrage of light rockets.
I’m not a rocket scientist though (ba dom tish) so I’m not sure.
The ADF was based on towed M198′s and UK light 105′s but the last white paper decided to drop 105mm completely. The regular towed light 105 unit’s are moving to M777′s and the current stocks of M198 are due to be replaced by 155mm Self Propelled Guns with Pzh2000′s and K9 Thunderers being shortlisted before the Defence Materiel Organisation out here stuffed up the tender process. The Army plainly want the Pzh2000!
To meet the higher costs of all 155mm Regulars, the reserve artillery regiments have re-rolled on 81mm morters.
The thinking out here was that an 81mm morter can reach half as far as a 105mm, is much cheaper and far more mobile. To reach further, anything a 105 can hit a 155 can harder. To top things off various smart 155 rounds are becoming available (copperheads and course corrected fuzes)whereas the 105 seems doomed to remain a dumb round.
The ADF had a look at 120mm morters a couple of years ago but the extra capability didn’t justify the cost of having another calibre in service.
With cost always pressing the idea of replacing 105 with something intermedite between 105 and 155 would simply add cost.
The reserve 105 units were somewhat pissed but they were given plenty of morters and rounds to use.
Hi, Chris. They did develop the LIMAWS(rocket) system some years ago, essentially a 6 round MLRS pack mounted on a 6×4 Supacat. Ran out of money before they could buy it though.
Meant to support light forces, it weighed in at about 9t with rockets so could be lifted by Chinook.
Would a short range system with mini rockets be worthwhile? We have mortars or even GMG that probably fill that spot effectively already.
Just to add to the debate:-
- ATACMS has had it’s guidance system modified to permit vertical impact terminal mode for urban targets. Also somewhat useful for mountains, and I’m sure GMLRS will shortly have the same
- re guns vs rockets, I suspect that the latter is gaining, since it can do both the precision mode and the grid square removal job better and cheaper than tubes. That being said, it’s more expensive in logistic tonnage for a specific weight of shell, but if we are usually firing far fewer of them, this will matter less
- regarding all the requirements for NGS, I suspect the Falklands expedient of assigning a frigate to each battalion attack is sadly not practicable unless we want a lot of Glamorgan incidents. Obviously the 4.5 has other naval jobs as well, so given we need more range and don’t want to dominate the VLS loadouts, some MLRS on amphibs seems like the logical solution
is there still a possibility of moving heavy artillery into the TA’s, seems pretty sensible to me.
perhaps as additional squadrons to regular battalions in the same way FR is roled………..
RE “Something that could be driven to a firing point and literally set up in seconds, firing off a big arse barrage of light rockets.”
When the Sheridan had already been binned, M1 the only game in town and the US Army realised that their airportable formations would be light infantry (at a disadvantage with most opponents, that is) once they had arrived, there was a thought of combining direct and indirect fires:
- “down”gun the tank (Israeli multi-purpose rounds for 105 mm were already available, to compensate) to achieve airportable weight
- add laser-guided rockets to both sides of the turret (accuracy will compensate for big barrage)
- the latter can have the targets self-lased, but don’t need to
- with an infantry team (or a helo) doing the lasing… you have direct and indirect fire on the same platform, ready in seconds or less, never fails to keep up (but can have other parts of the formation scouting ahead, to neutralise OpFor ATGW teams in hiding)
… sadly, was never realised (the said rocket also entered mass production many many years late)
I’m thinking with light(er) rockets, they would have to find a range home between MLRS and mortars. So basically replace the 105.
I guess it’s all relative in the end, each weapon to its own merits and all that.
RE some of TD’s “teaser” points:
Is 105/155 the right mix, what about a single intermediate calibre
- agree with the scepticism expressed about “single”
Do we need traditional armoured self propelled system like AS90 anymore
- yes, but in a more balanced mix
- cross-train crews, TA included, in 105 and 155 SPG
- have a small number of both permanently attached to each MRB (see the next point about rounding off numbers to be sufficient for “effect”)
Where do mortars fit in, is there a case, for example, for a 120mm and if so Infantry or Artillery
- yes, we need to address the requirement for fire support “never to fail to keep up”
- 81 mm is organic to bn’s; 120 mm should be organic to AI bn’s (and obviously on a similar, well protected and mobile chassis as the rest of the unit)… this would be the 3rd battery of the bde, even if not within RA
The bunfight between RA/AAC and RAF for extended range attack
- I am not sure there is a bunfight between RA/AAC (sure, RAF would want to control everything that takes off from a runway)
- base-bleed and Excalibur for RA, with loitering munitions (I don’t share the enthusiasm of e.g. rusi), GMLRS – even ATACMS loaded (ie. one instead of six) to the other launcher unit on the carrier) … reach and effect is not the problem, but real-time targeting and as someone pointed out, real-time airspace picture not to do damage on the way to the target
- identifying and targeting for extended range effect should not rely solely on e.g. Watchkeeper; as we know from the Georgia conflict, the Russians easily downed 4 of similar Israeli-supplied thingies right at the start
RE “Something that could be driven to a firing point and literally set up in seconds, firing off a big arse barrage of light rockets.”
When the Sheridan had already been binned, M1 the only game in town and the US Army realised that their airportable formations would be light infantry (at a disadvantage with most opponents, that is) once they had arrived, there was a thought of combining direct and indirect fires:
- “down”gun the tank (Israeli multi-purpose rounds for 105 mm were already available) to achieve airportable weight
- add laser-guided rockets to both sides of the turret (accuracy will compensate for big barrage)
- the latter can have the targets self-lased, but don’t need to
- with an infantry team (or a helo) doing the lasing… you have direct and indirect fire on the same platform, ready in seconds or less, never fails to keep up (but can have other parts of the formation scouting ahead, to neutralise OpFor ATGW teams in hiding)
… sadly, was never realised (the said rocket also entered mass production many many years late)
A couple of folks question whether 120 mortars could replace the light gun.
One thing to consider is that a vehicle mounted 120mm advanced mortar requires less crew than a single light gun and, if you believe the product brochures, can provide a heavier bombardment – very important in our incredible shrinking army. And can do shoot and scoot faster than the guns.
———
I remember seeing a CGI video quite some time ago of a much more automated 155 gun, proposed for the army. With cash tight, new heavy artillery might not be a priority right now, but there is further scope to shave off some manpower without cutting into capability.
Quite a few people seem to be doing artilery at then moment.
I’m swinging towards “peacekeepers” need a smattering of light guns, stick a 105 in a FOB, and suddenly shoot and scotts are rather more dangerous for the other side.
But I’m struggling to see what an MRB would do with any artilery at all. Armour componant is looking like 20-40 MBTs and 40 Scout Tanks.
What exactly does that force need artilery for?
Artilery might be dead….
There will soon be laser seeker heads for FFAR’s (APKWS) and I wonder if such seekers could be applied to something like the old german LARS.
Also,what sort of range would a CVR-7 would have if deployed as light artillery rather than from under the wing of a Harrier?
Pete
http://www.bristol.ca/Downloads/CRV7-PG.pdf
Does the LMM have any significant advantages over the CRV7-PG, and will we be getting the latter?
“What exactly does that force need artilery for?”
For the same reason artillery has always been used. For the same reason it is being fired in Afghanistan now and was fired in the Falklands and Iraq. And the Gulf. It is raw fire power. It is devastatingly effective and it doesn’t care how well trained or professional its targets are.
The words Medium Role Brigade have not changed the essence of hundreds of years of conflict. And I don’t see the link between armour numbers and the need for artillery.
It’s all about the application of fire power and nothing beats artillery / mortars for doing that on a swift and grand scale.
Andy, I think the LMM is far more versatile, shorter minimum distance, greater potential range of seekers and an all round better improvement but here is the rub, its way more expensive. We have just placed a production order for LMM so the likelihood of getting CRV7PG into service is the square root of zero
Phil
Well, I specificaly mention that its worth its weight in gold in places like Afghanistan, so, we can cross that one off.
The falklands, yep, if we took away the 30 guns, that would have been a disaster, but if we replaced them with 30 MBTs, would the war have been easier or harder?
My vote would be easier.
Hands up, I could be wrong, but in my understanding, 30 Challies could have easily overran the Argentine lines.
It could just be my limited knowledge, but I’m unaware of any major artilery victories in either gulf war, or the persian war before it
“The words Medium Role Brigade have not changed the essence of hundreds of years of conflict. And I don’t see the link between armour numbers and the need for artillery.”
Blitzkreig.
A Tank is, in effect, little more than a very expensive, very mobile(in its way), very survivable artilery piece.
I dont see the need for its cheaper, fixed, glass jawed little brother, especialy considering the sort of war we are liable to fight in the future.
Which are, in effect, lightening wars.
Whichy, although grand in effect, are unlikely to be grand in scale, the BEF sent to France in the first world war is bigger than the entire british army. In future, a british force, even including air and naval complements, is unlikely to number 40,000
Or, COIN, which I agree, needs guns, far more than we have deployed in Afghanistan.
I asked, would I rather send a tank, or a gun, and apart from afghanistanesque situations, the asnwer was always tank.
DominicJ
The clue is in the name, “indirect fire”. Tanks provide direct fire. Artillery and mortars, indirect fire. They do that over a far greater space than a tank can provide direct fire. An artillery piece if essentially able to be in lots of different places at lots of different times across a very wide battle space in as long as it takes to lay on. A tank, cannot do this.
With your Falklands example, tanks or artillery? The answer is simple, ideally, both. You play to win and so you bring all your strengths to bear, so you need both. That would have made it easiest of all.
Artillery victories in the Gulf War? It was artillery that helped ensure that when forces descended on the objectives the enemy were already a shattered force. More than many other wars the Persian and Iraq wars were one of artillery (whether through guns or via planes) because of the wide open spaces.
Blitzkrieg never changed the essence of war either.
It was simply the exploitation of the new found operational manoeuvrability afforded to conflict with motor vehicles and improved communication systems. And to gain that operational manoeuvrability it must, in all except the least dense battlefields, be earned through attrition. And this is where artillery plays a massive role. All battles boil down to attrition, all wars boil down to attrition. Artillery does a lot of donkey work to that end.
There’s no Blitzkrieg on a dense battlefield with depth.
Yankee artillery officer here, with a few thoughts if you don’t mind.
1)I’m a big believer in mixed calibers. The USMC moved to a single caliber (155mm) in the 80′s and 90′s and it was found to be insufficient. The US Army uses both 105mm and 155mm. 105′s for lighter units and 155mm for heavy units. I think this is appropriate if you have a mix of heavy and light maneuver units. Not so much for the USMC that claims to utilize only light units. Even if you only have light units, artillery support needs to be able to go lighter or heavier depending on situation.
2)The only utility I see in SP vs. Towed is for armor units. In a large, conventional armored fight a towed system would have trouble keeping up with tanks. Otherwise, towed works just fine.
3) A 120mm is a good but possibly unnecessary system. They definitely belong with the artillery. Grunts are not going to hump a 120mm or the ammo and still be able to maneuver like a grunt unit should. An artillery unit is better equipped logistically to handle a 120mm.
4)Dispersion is necessary to handle a larger area of operations. Artillery units have to be capable of splitting up into sections and operating independently. Good communications is necessary to do this, and each sub-unit needs its own fire direction capability. Manual fire direction probably can’t support the dispersion, need to be able to rely solely on automated fire direction.
“Is 105/155 the right mix, what about a single intermediate calibre”
This is a technological lock-in. 105 mm is calibre of choice for lightness (and the South Africans have a G7 LEO howitzer for ~ 30 km range with base bleed) and 155 mm for range (and when weight doesn’t matter much).
155 mm will survive as NATO standard, and the UK army is too small to justify a major deviation from NATO standard.
“Do we need traditional armoured self propelled system like AS90 anymore”
Such designs are valuable in conventional warfare, but new procurements could be dumpster truck-based, see the Swedish design.
“Where do mortars fit in, is there a case, for example, for a 120mm and if so Infantry or Artillery”
Normal 120 mm mortars (not the expensive turrets, not the long barrel-long range designs) are a very good choice (and NATO standard) as organic battlegroup / battalion indirect fires system.
“The bunfight between RA/AAC and RAF for extended range attack”"
Surface-surface missiles with up to 500 km range should be under army control in order to give aground leadership some bargaining chips in their cooperation with their air force.
“The role of sythetic training systems”
This is a done deal, computer-based training is essential for cost reasons and can be more realistic than live-fire exercises (especially for the artillery).
“Counter battery fires, or more likely counter rocket and mortar fire, do we have the right equipment mix”
I personally would place a greater emphasis on 360° counter-battery radar surveillance AND its availability within seconds of stopping the vehicle. This is a necessity for mobile forces.
“Where does naval Gunfire and land attack fit into the matrix”
It’s a mere niche.
“Are we going precision crazy and ignoring the utility of flattening grid squares”
Suppressive fires with HE (proximity fused) and smoke shell lines (smoke screens) are of great tactical importance. Destruction by direct or close hits is only part of the artillery’s job.
“How can indirect fires support a larger area of operation, is longer range or greater mobility the answer”
Mix it. The artillery and mortars that are organic to manoeuvre formations need to be supplied, of course. This should be relatively easy in mobile warfare if the unit carry enough ammo (mobile warfare = high fuel consumption, low ammunition consumption).
“How can we organise direction and management of indirect fires, is it a recce or RA task”
Joint fire support teams (mortar, artillery, air attack, naval fire support) with high-end hardware and training for Schwerpunkt actions and very good positions (dominating heights).
Leaders, snipers and recce: Qualified for calling for support fires. Bn Cmd and up are able to command instead of ask for a fire mission, of course.
“What about UAV’s and CAS”
Forget UAVs for attack for a while. CAS – expensive, only for theatre Schwerpunkt or very low intensity warfare.
“What about the impact of greater urbanisation”
Shit happens. Ability to hit individual buildings and to create smoke screens is required, but other than that there’s little arty can do.
“What about rockets, is there a case for a smaller round”
227 mm MLRS is de facto NATO standard and unlikely to go away, even though I thin that the Israeli 160 mm LAR is a superior approach. It can use 155 mm cargo shell submunitions. The UK army is too small to deviate on its own, though.
“Loitering munitions, a decade too late or armed UAV replacement”
The only loitering munitions that make sense are anti-radar munitions with SEAD purpose (emphasis on the “S” for “suppression”.
S O makes the very good point that the 105/155 is a NATO standard and thus unlikely to be deviated from for some time. If we had an intermediate shell then we’d be the only ones using it and our interoperability and flexibility would be severely curtailed (not least when we go begging to Belgium for 155mm shells).
what is the actual real world interoperability between NATO nations for artillery shells anyway, I mean really
Afaik the shells are interchangeable, but you need to inform the artillerymen about their actual external ballistics.
Guided shells require extra equipment for handling, of course.
Regarding urbanisation.
People seem to forget that it is the responsibility of the soldiers *Occupying* the city to ensure the protection of the civillian populace and infrastructure, not those shelling it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Goose_Green
“”MILITARY OPTIONS
We have sent a PW to you under a white flag of truce to convey the following military options:
1. That you unconditionally surrender your force to us by leaving the township, forming up in a military manner, removing your helmets and laying down your weapons. You will give prior notice of this intention by returning the PW under a white flag with him briefed as to the formalities by no later than 0830 hrs local time.
2. You refuse in the first case to surrender and take the inevitable consequences. You will give prior notice of this intention by returning the PW without his flag (although his neutrality will be respected) no later than 0830 hrs local time.
3. In the event and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Geneva Convention and Laws of War you will be held responsible for the fate of any civilians in Darwin and Goose Green and we in accordance with these terms do give notice of our intention to bombard Darwin and Goose Green.
C KEEBLE
Commander of British Forces”"
The Guardianistas might not like it, mostly because they prefer the terrorists shooting from schools to the Israelis soldiers they are shooting at, but it is perfectly legal to use a 1000lb bomb on a mortar, even if its fireing from the top of a childrens hospital, and any ensueing loss of life is the fault of the mortar team and the officer who placed it there, not the pilot who bombed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war#Applicability_to_states_and_individuals
“By the same token, combatants that intentionally use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected.”
“People seem to forget that it is the responsibility of the soldiers *Occupying* the city to ensure the protection of the civillian populace and infrastructure, not those shelling it.”
Negative.
All military actions should be bound by the principles of military necessity, humanity, proportionality and distinction. Shelling the shit out of a town can violate all those principles.
This “use” means ‘force them to the position they want to protect against attack’.
It’s perfectly legal to set up camp in an inhabited village, for example. That’s not prohibited behaviour and no special responsibilities for the lives of the civilians are attached.
If we could afford it, I would love to see the M777 155mm howitzer, with its much heavier hitting power, in British Army service (to serve alongside the 105mm Light Gun – 155s for heavy units and 105s for lighter units).
However, I have one lingering doubt in my mind about the M777. I think I remember reading years ago that although it could be carried underslung by a Chinook, it could not be transported thus by a Merlin. If the Merlins are all to go to the Royal Navy, the M777s would not be much use in support of the Royal Marines, would they, or have I got that entirely wrong?
Hi BB,
“can provide a heavier bombardment – very important in our incredible shrinking army.”
- hence two barrels:16 rounds in the first 2 minutes out to 10-12 km, depending on type of round
- And can do shoot and scoot faster than the guns; yes ready to shoot almost as soon as stops as all targeting is on GPS (manual override, of course)
I think the latest is the Canadian decision
- http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article.php?forumID=1912
- only one barrel, on wheels to give better range (and speed) to reach the next firing position
“A BAe representative confirmed one assumption that I have had and expressed since a long time.
It takes two to three minutes to turn around a M777 lightweight 155mm howitzer beyond its small traverse. This prevents a good responsiveness all-round. Assertions of airborne guys about their ability to secure an airfield for air-deployable reinforcements are not credible for this reason. The M777 is a 39 calibre barrel length gun (already out-ranged by 52 cal guns) and it needs eight guns minimum for a 360° coverage at response times of less than two minutes.
Sure, such equipment proves itself against Taleban and its users seem to like it. But did these users encounter any counter-artillery-capable opponents in the past 63 years? No.”
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2008/06/eurosatory-2008.html
Phil
No, not negative, a soldier fighting from a hospital or other such structure is responsible for any damage done to it.
“Shelling the shit out of a town can violate all those principles.”
It *can* but *can* does not mean *does*.
Use a Grid Square Removal Service on central Paris to get a sniper would probably fail.
Using it to destroy a tank regiment would not.
Many people seem to have the mistaken opinion that a soldier fighting from a hospital has donned some sort of legal armour, he has not, he has jumped into a legal noose.
Thats not to say the UK would bomb hospitals, even if the other side made them legal targets, but thats for political/press reasons, rather than cast iron legal ones.
For example, had we used area munitions against argentine airfields, despite massive losses to civillians, that would clearly be a military necessity, whereas the same against the fleet in port, would probably fail, because they’d been knocked out of the war already.
SO
Using my above example, I’m fairly sure if the argies hadnt surrendered, and goose green had been shelled, with heavy civillian losses, some of them would be in jail / gallows over it.
We’d be less interested in holding the other side to account for losses to their civillian populace.
I’m surprised that got such a reaction, personaly I;m still not a fan of artilery, but ironicaly, its because we hit better civillian targets with guided stuff…..
Hi DJ, your bottom line answer is to the wrong question, as it is not “either-or”.
Further:
“the persian war before it”
- was, if anything lately, an artillery war on the lines of WW1. The lines soon froze and then 8(?) years of that followed (including death-defying infantry charges across mine fields, barbed wire – on occasions even gas)
“the link between armour numbers and the need for artillery…
Blitzkreig.”
- lesson learnt(?): Don’t ever let the artillery support fall behind (SPG was the answer then, and part of the answer still today)