User Panel
Quoted: Wars of the future will move too fast for the old tactic of fire bases. Just look at the past 20 years. View Quote Maybe for a while. Then the defenses against things like drones will get better and it might be better to have a firebase w/ multiple layers of defense instead of mobility. It goes in cycles. |
|
Quoted: Can I buy a surplus artillery gun then? View Quote I watched them un-crating new mortars from the 1960s just to destroy them at Anniston Army Depot. Your tax dollars at work. They'd probably donate them to Ukraine or some other "friendly" nation, if they want them. |
|
Everything has reached the end of effectiveness and become obsolete - until someone gives it a whirl in an unanticipated situation.
Grenades for example. The launched (from hand mortars) versions were used in Europe from the 1400s-1800s but largely declared obsolete in the late 1800s and hand-thrown devices were seen as foolhardy at best. Until the Russo-Japanese war changed every major power's mind. |
|
Try that in the Anti-air environment that is Ukraine. :30 sec lifespan. |
|
Quoted: Fuck it, lets get some SC carriers already, though I'm not sure if we have enough pylons. View Quote Well I heard there already drone "motherships". Or they're being worked. Regardless, man...... Attached File |
|
|
Quoted: Well I am ASSuming you need a turbine engine because you will need a lot of compact ass to move 4000 kilograms View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: 'Cuz drones don't or cant use other forms of propulsion..... "The Reaper has a 950-shaft-horsepower (712 kW) turboprop engine (compared to the Predator's 115 hp (86 kW) piston engine)." Well I am ASSuming you need a turbine engine because you will need a lot of compact ass to move 4000 kilograms ASSuming indeed. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 'Cuz drones don't or cant use other forms of propulsion..... "The Reaper has a 950-shaft-horsepower (712 kW) turboprop engine (compared to the Predator's 115 hp (86 kW) piston engine)." Well I am ASSuming you need a turbine engine because you will need a lot of compact ass to move 4000 kilograms ASSuming indeed. Batteries are a long way from replacing turbines on aircraft. |
|
Quoted: Again this comes down to the economics of production cost, volume and logistics of usage. View Quote You replace hammered tin barrels with rocket pods, the vehicles are lighter and the crew is reduced. Likely more than makes up for the 130mm missile costing twice as much as a cannon round. Since one vehicle carries 20-36 rounds you can lay the scunnion or a DS FA Bn firing one round per gun and then displace a single launcher while the rest remain hidden. |
|
Quoted: They are only necessary when you need your fire support where there are no roads, like on the top of a mountain, in the middle of a jungle or deep into enemy territory following a vertical envelopment The General is also forgetting parallel developments into IAMD and CUAS. View Quote Would you prefer 105 or 155 for towed guns? |
|
Quoted: So no Airborne cannons? That's fucking stupid and so is relying on 120's https://media.defense.gov/2014/Jul/29/2001130536/-1/-1/0/077782-T-WRB75-693.jpg View Quote What’s more likely than ABN losing their cannons is ABN losing their parachutes. |
|
Quoted: What’s more likely than ABN losing their cannons is ABN losing their parachutes. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: So no Airborne cannons? That's fucking stupid and so is relying on 120's https://media.defense.gov/2014/Jul/29/2001130536/-1/-1/0/077782-T-WRB75-693.jpg What’s more likely than ABN losing their cannons is ABN losing their parachutes. SEAD isn't an Army problem to solve |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So no Airborne cannons? That's fucking stupid and so is relying on 120's https://media.defense.gov/2014/Jul/29/2001130536/-1/-1/0/077782-T-WRB75-693.jpg What’s more likely than ABN losing their cannons is ABN losing their parachutes. SEAD isn't an Army problem to solve So the solution is to build an Army that depends on Air Force capabilities that no longer exist in sufficient quantities to execute the mission? How effective is that going to be? |
|
|
Quoted: Would you prefer 105 or 155 for towed guns? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: They are only necessary when you need your fire support where there are no roads, like on the top of a mountain, in the middle of a jungle or deep into enemy territory following a vertical envelopment The General is also forgetting parallel developments into IAMD and CUAS. Would you prefer 105 or 155 for towed guns? Almost all the development and lethality work has been focused on 155mm. |
|
|
I don't see why you would need an armored tracked vehicle for your mobile artillery; just too much expense that has led to the cancellation during development of the last two generations of U.S. mobile artillery. Since you are doing shoot and scoot behind the front lines you shouldn't need the armor or the tracks. Would need an accompanying radar equipped drone defense vehicle, but again it doesn't need to be armored or tracked.
A 5 ton truck with a couple of stabilizers and a hydraulic recoil blade on the back would allow mounting and firing a 155mm howitzer. A 1 ton pickup with electrical jack stabilizers could mount a 120mm mortar in the bed with room to shoot and space for ammo. Not sure about using GPS anymore as Russia has developed effective GPS jamming systems, but the U.S. has countered with effective inertial location systems. |
|
Quoted: Ah you are doing math wrong. Now do it in 2024 terms. M777 is a whole lot better looking asset because it is easy to make and produce and the ammo is CHEAP. You cant lob himars at the same rate as 155mm ammo. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Towed artillery has only one thing going for it, it's cheap, and even that is only if you consider equipment and not personnel costs. Otherwise it's slower to emplace and displace, requires a large crew, and has a fairly short range. A HIMARS battery has around 75 people for 8 launchers. An EAB M777 cannon battery has about the same number of people for 4 tubes. The long term cost of all those extra personnel to man half as many platforms is substantial. Wheeled or tracked cannon will be the only ones to survive. The crew requirement is lower and they're more maneuverable, while maintaining the capability to shoot large numbers of cheaper unguided rounds for suppression at shorter ranges. Ah you are doing math wrong. Now do it in 2024 terms. M777 is a whole lot better looking asset because it is easy to make and produce and the ammo is CHEAP. You cant lob himars at the same rate as 155mm ammo. Try getting parts for a 777, shit for a 119 right now. |
|
|
Quoted: I don't see why you would need an armored tracked vehicle for your mobile artillery; just too much expense that has led to the cancellation during development of the last two generations of U.S. mobile artillery. Since you are doing shoot and scoot behind the front lines you shouldn't need the armor or the tracks. Would need an accompanying radar equipped drone defense vehicle, but again it doesn't need to be armored or tracked. A 5 ton truck with a couple of stabilizers and a hydraulic recoil blade on the back would allow mounting and firing a 155mm howitzer. A 1 ton pickup with electrical jack stabilizers could mount a 120mm mortar in the bed with room to shoot and space for ammo. Not sure about using GPS anymore as Russia has developed effective GPS jamming systems, but the U.S. has countered with effective inertial location systems. View Quote The light ones are not durable, and the durable ones are not light. |
|
if you are preparing to fight the next war like you fought the last war you will lose.
most governments prepare to fight the last war over again..... |
|
Quoted: So no Airborne cannons? That's fucking stupid and so is relying on 120's https://media.defense.gov/2014/Jul/29/2001130536/-1/-1/0/077782-T-WRB75-693.jpg View Quote Same thought. And also Air Assault. 101st won't have canons? Or are they going to get some sort of Toyota Hilux variant? |
|
Quoted: "You fight a war with the tools you have." Donald Rumsfeld View Quote I'm reading Theodore Roosevelt's book The Rough Riders right now, and this thread is well timed. The US Army took what the future POTUS calls a "dynamite gun", four Colt guns and some Hotchkiss one pounders into battle on San Juan Hill, just outside of Santiago, Cuba. The Colts were wheeled Gatling guns, I believe in 45-70, but I had to look up a dynamite gun. Smithsonian says, "The Sims-Dudley Dynamite Gun was an advanced, lightweight kind of artillery piece that had not yet proven itself in battle with the Americans like the Gatling Gun had. Despite its name, it did not actually fire sticks of dynamite. It used compressed air to fire gelatinous explosives, not dynamite." He makes the point over and over about how disadvantaged the USA forces were firing cannons using black powder, which produced large rings of smoke and drew heavy and prolonged Spanish fire. The Spaniards had smokeless powder in both artillery and their Mausers, making it almost impossible to identify their positions in the thick jungle. LtCol (at the time) Roosevelt heaped praise on a young Lt Parker, who made the decision to bring the Colts up in the heaviest fighting. He says, "I started over to inquire, and found that Lieutenant Parker, not content with using his guns in support of the attacking forces, had thrust them forward to the extreme front of the fighting line, where he was handling them with great effect. From this time on, throughout the fighting, Parker's Gatlings were on the right of my regiment...indeed, the dash and efficiency with which the Gatlings were handled by Parker was one of the most striking features of the campaign; he showed that a first-rate officer could use machine guns, on wheels, in battle and skirmish, in attacking and defending trenches, alongside of the best troops, and to their great advantage." It's a fascinating book, especially being written by an officer who actually managed to survive despite his best efforts...the officers of the time mostly refused cover, believing it inspired their men...and their casualty rate as a result was very high. Lots of photos and illustrations, and much commentary on the men who flocked to enlist to the fight, including a couple of observations about several regiments of black cavalry regiments that would bring an absolute storm now. Highly recommended. |
|
Quoted: Same thought. And also Air Assault. 101st won't have canons? Or are they going to get some sort of Toyota Hilux variant? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: So no Airborne cannons? That's fucking stupid and so is relying on 120's https://media.defense.gov/2014/Jul/29/2001130536/-1/-1/0/077782-T-WRB75-693.jpg Same thought. And also Air Assault. 101st won't have canons? Or are they going to get some sort of Toyota Hilux variant? I've seen a HMMWV 105 hybrid straight out of Alien Resurrection but they'd need a Chinook for each tube. Quoted: It is a joint and interagency mission, and some of the many of the most effective tools don’t belong to DoD. Quoted: So the solution is to build an Army that depends on Air Force capabilities that no longer exist in sufficient quantities to execute the mission? How effective is that going to be? Mission dictates gear |
|
|
Quoted: I don't see why you would need an armored tracked vehicle for your mobile artillery; just too much expense that has led to the cancellation during development of the last two generations of U.S. mobile artillery. Since you are doing shoot and scoot behind the front lines you shouldn't need the armor or the tracks. Would need an accompanying radar equipped drone defense vehicle, but again it doesn't need to be armored or tracked. A 5 ton truck with a couple of stabilizers and a hydraulic recoil blade on the back would allow mounting and firing a 155mm howitzer. A 1 ton pickup with electrical jack stabilizers could mount a 120mm mortar in the bed with room to shoot and space for ammo. Not sure about using GPS anymore as Russia has developed effective GPS jamming systems, but the U.S. has countered with effective inertial location systems. View Quote Let’s see. You’re going to be driving through off road terrain rutted by hundreds of tracked and wheeled vehicles, and bombs, and shells, across the fragments of those bombs and shells, which will puncture your tires, across mines and submunitions and IEDs and you’re likely to come under indirect fire, drone strikes, enemy air attack and even attacks by enemy SOF or leave behinds. And that’s if you’re winning. Now let’s think about artillery raids. |
|
Quoted: I think thats gonna depend on the conflict. if you can set up a FOB and not worry about counter battery then a towed piece that can be fairly stagnant probably makes a lot of sense. But in a world where counter battery fire is fairly rapid i would imagine a self propelled system that can shoot and scoot is the preferred package. but those new systems are pricey AF. View Quote old joke: how can you tell when your counterbattery fire is effective? the enemy artillery stops firing . |
|
Quoted: So no Airborne cannons? That's fucking stupid and so is relying on 120's https://media.defense.gov/2014/Jul/29/2001130536/-1/-1/0/077782-T-WRB75-693.jpg View Quote The best part about that is the UCP. Towed guns make sense since there’s no air dropping of heavier assets |
|
The General says this two years after the Army made a big deal out of a wheeled artillery competition in which they chose to adopt fuck and all.
|
|
|
Quoted: Shoot and scoot or die. View Quote This. In the simulation training scenarios at For Sill 15 - 20 years ago the OPFOR would only be allowed to shoot a kilometer away from the towed arty ... ONCE ... with HE, not ICM. Only if they failed to make any effort to displace would OPFOR be allowed to re-engage them. Otherwise, they died early, the G.I.s in that cell got no training. |
|
|
|
When is the generals position on the board of directors of BAE Land Systems opening up?
|
|
Quoted: Ah you are doing math wrong. Now do it in 2024 terms. M777 is a whole lot better looking asset because it is easy to make and produce and the ammo is CHEAP. You cant lob himars at the same rate as 155mm ammo. View Quote You can't lob 155mm ammo if the tube, truck, and crew are dead because they couldn't displace before the counter-battery fire landed. Or if the tube has displaced and is emplacing at the new posititon. Or preparing to displace. |
|
I don't think he is wrong, but the Air Force thinks the A10s are obsolete
|
|
Quoted: Not an artillertman, but I was an electronics tech while I was Navy, and I'm a physicist now... It depends on how complete your radar coverage is. If you can detect the shell within seconds of it leaving the tube, no amount of fuckery is going to help. Otherwise, rocket assist, etc will be helpful in complicating trajectory analysis. View Quote How complete your radar coverage is, your queuing schedule, the availability of artillery to range the detected firing position that ISN'T already committed to something else, the speed at which the targets can displace, the detection (or lack thereof) of other targets with a similar or higher priority, how much counter-counter battery radar and assets are committed to the fight, and how aggressively the targeting queue is managed to discard stale targets. |
|
Quoted: But aren't they using trenches in Ukraine? View Quote What many dont seem to understand is that 'war never changes' is sort of true. Fortifications change in design but not in concept. Why? IMO there is a sort of stoiciometric quality that advancements in offensive and defensive tech creates. Towed artillery isnt at the end of its effectiveness. The current tactics without solid drone defense are. When those solid defenses are deployed en masse, the tactics return to near what they were. |
|
Our Light, Airborne and Air Assault Divisions going to receive truck-mounted 155mm Pieces like the South African G6 or the Swedish Archer?
105mm Light Arty Batteries can likely be replaced by the new fangled 120mm breach-loaded, semi automatic type systems. |
|
Quoted: It’s interesting - in less than a century, the people in the crew have gone from the least expensive, to the most expensive part of a weapons system. (Or second most expensive, considering the electronics suite in some systems). Do large vehicle mounted mortars make any sense at all, any more? The actual cost of the tube is trivial, compared to the vehicle and crew (for first world armies). View Quote Breach loading mortars that can be loaded and fired from within an armored carrier are probably the wave of the future. |
|
Quoted: There were trenches at the siege Carolus Rex was killed at in the early 1700s. Further back you have fortifications that used the landscape to provide protection for a castles defenders: iow.. trenches. What many dont seem to understand is that 'war never changes' is sort of true. Fortifications change in design but not in concept. Why? IMO there is a sort of stoiciometric quality that advancements in offensive and defensive tech creates. Towed artillery isnt at the end of its effectiveness. The current tactics without solid drone defense are. When those solid defenses are deployed en masse, the tactics return to near what they were. View Quote The thing about those countermeasures is they need to me mounted on vehicles, and one of the countermeasures is putting the crew under armor, and by the time you connect all the dots you’re going to have more self propelled guns. |
|
Quoted: I don't see why you would need an armored tracked vehicle for your mobile artillery; just too much expense that has led to the cancellation during development of the last two generations of U.S. mobile artillery. Since you are doing shoot and scoot behind the front lines you shouldn't need the armor or the tracks. Would need an accompanying radar equipped drone defense vehicle, but again it doesn't need to be armored or tracked. A 5 ton truck with a couple of stabilizers and a hydraulic recoil blade on the back would allow mounting and firing a 155mm howitzer. A 1 ton pickup with electrical jack stabilizers could mount a 120mm mortar in the bed with room to shoot and space for ammo. Not sure about using GPS anymore as Russia has developed effective GPS jamming systems, but the U.S. has countered with effective inertial location systems. View Quote Trucks have these round black air filled things called "tires" that don't react well to shrapnel and bomblets from near-misses that a tracked vehicle can shake off. Plus the crews don't really like to break out the jack and lug wrench until the incoming stops landing. |
|
Quoted: The end of the civil war included trench warfare, also. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wars of the future will move too fast for the old tactic of fire bases. Just look at the past 20 years. Just like trenches were a WW1 thing........ The end of the civil war included trench warfare, also. The american revolutionary war also had trenches. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.