User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 9:36:44 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The best part about that is the UCP. Towed guns make sense since there’s no air dropping of heavier assets Quote HistoryQuoted: 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 The best part about that is the UCP. Towed guns make sense since there’s no air dropping of heavier assets I tried turning in four brand new UCP pancho liners and CIF turned their nose and wouldn't let me retire until I gave them my M-81 woobie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 9:38:20 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. That is correct. Now imagine we go in a conflict with a near peer adversary. Our expensive shit will be disappearing fast. Towed artillery is better than no artillery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 9:49:39 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. IIRC a cannon battery has over 100 people for 6 cannons. The other thing that doesn't get enough attention is the minimum package size, you can deploy a single HIMARS if you have to, it can receive fire missions by SATCOM or HF. If you need an ammo truck that's two more people and an RSV. If you want to include an FDC, an officer and some ammo trucks you've got two dozen people involved. I don't know what a cannon package would look like but I doubt that's it. Most of the world has 122mm or 130mm rockets in an MFOM pod. 18-20 rounds, 30-36 km range, accuracy is surprisingly good. We could have that too, if we wanted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 10:07:43 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is correct. Now imagine we go in a conflict with a near peer adversary. Our expensive shit will be disappearing fast. Towed artillery is better than no artillery. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. That is correct. Now imagine we go in a conflict with a near peer adversary. Our expensive shit will be disappearing fast. Towed artillery is better than no artillery. We will be raiding museums for spare parts in a year or two into a large scale war. Like Ukraine and Russia are doing now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 10:10:02 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would you prefer 105 or 155 for towed guns? Quote HistoryQuoted: 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? 155 all the guns, way more lethal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 10:15:05 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. This |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 10:15:59 PM EDT
[#7]
What's needed is really inexpensive MRBMs
It's probably impossible to fight a war against someone who can reach out across a thousand miles and bitch slap the exact spot you're standing on ten thousand times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 10:17:55 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. It's funny because the Stryker was an interim vehicle and the M777 was the interim howitzer, but here we are 22 years later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 10:21:30 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 155 all the guns, way more lethal. I've never dug into the lethality thing but I do wonder if the difference is that pronounced. What I've seen says that it takes about 2x as many 105 rounds to do the work as 155s. The M1130 is a PFF round that is probably very expensive, but on par with the 155s as well for soft and lightly armored targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 10:23:01 PM EDT
[#10]
I’m no military expert, but I can see electronic anti- drone devices coming along shortly. Like an electronic net of protection. While drones seem invincible right now, they’re still an electronic device and we all know how reliable those are. Artillery doesn’t need batteries.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 10:27:26 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m no military expert, but I can see electronic anti- drone devices coming along shortly. Like an electronic net of protection. While drones seem invincible right now, they’re still an electronic device and we all know how reliable those are. Artillery doesn’t need batteries. Artillery can also operate regardless of the weather situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 11:00:21 PM EDT
[#12]
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/12/21/army-long-range-cannon-gets-direct-hit-on-target-43-miles-away/
As my Cav friend put it,”That’s almost un-gentlemanly!” |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 11:00:33 PM EDT
[#13]
Once we get scattershot EMP cannon online, drones will cease to be a threat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 11:04:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wars of the future will move too fast for the old tactic of fire bases. Just look at the past 20 years. Towed howitzers aren’t just for static firing in support of friendly patrols in contact or H&I missions. Non-SP guns are mobile via RW lift or (more commonly) rolling stock / wheeled assets and can move right along with an attacking force as it maneuvers against the enemy toward the objective. Speaking of mobile, HIMARS can be wielded in ways that are VERY mobile, very fast in ways tubed arty cannot. Anyway, SP guns have at least some protection for the crew and can fire a mission and then immediately displace to another location just far enough away to avoid counter battery fire. SP and towed howitzers both have their advantages and disadvantages. The USMC had SP guns but divested of them (IIRC) after the first Gulf War. I believe the last 175mm projo from a USMC SP gun was fired at 29 Stumps CA in the early ‘90s. I never saw anything but M198s in Kuwait, fired from either 10th or 14th Marines. They were mobile as fuck, too. Someone (I won’t name who) is going to come up with a cost effective CUAS system and these “visionary” types that see legacy weapons as stylishly obsolete in the near future are going to have egg on their face. Again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 11:12:15 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Towed howitzers aren’t just for static firing in support of friendly patrols in contact or H&I missions. Non-SP guns are mobile via RW lift or (more commonly) rolling stock / wheeled assets and can move right along with an attacking force as it maneuvers against the enemy toward the objective. Quote HistoryQuoted: Towed howitzers aren’t just for static firing in support of friendly patrols in contact or H&I missions. Non-SP guns are mobile via RW lift or (more commonly) rolling stock / wheeled assets and can move right along with an attacking force as it maneuvers against the enemy toward the objective. What you can't move a lot of is ammunition. Quoted: Speaking of mobile, HIMARS can be wielded in ways that are VERY mobile, very fast in ways tubed arty cannot. Brits developed a launcher that was small enough to be sling loaded. Didn't buy it, though. Quoted: SP and towed howitzers both have their advantages and disadvantages. The USMC had SP guns but divested of them (IIRC) after the first Gulf War. I believe the last 175mm projo from an SP gun was fired at 29 Stumps CA in the early ‘90s. I never saw anything but M198s in Kuwait, fired from either 10th or 14th Marines. They were mobile as fuck, too. Someone (I won’t name who) is going to come up with a cost effective CUS system and these “visionary” types that see legacy weapons as stylishly obsolete in the near future are going to have egg on their face. Again. 175mm had a bad reputation because of barrel explosions in Vietnam and innaccuracy generally. Very long ranged, though. We went through a LOT of different howitzer types and at one point we have 105, 155, 175, 203 and several types of howitzers for each. After the CW we got down to M119, M198 then M777, and M109. R0N pointed out that 105 development stalled, the exception is the M1130E1 replaced 4 types of ammunition with a single PFF, BB round that has a 17 km range. Well, that same round with a larger combustion chamber and longer barrel (Denel G7) goes 33 km and I'm surprised that the Army and particularly the USMC never bought it. The Army flirted with a Stryker based SPH. The Brits, of course, had the Abbott with a Light Gun. 20 km range on a tracked chassis similar to the M113. All that is a way of saying that we've tried it all and the recent fixation on M777 and M109 is probably budget related as much as anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 11:15:15 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Breach loading mortars that can be loaded and fired from within an armored carrier are probably the wave of the future. Quote HistoryQuoted: 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). Breach loading mortars that can be loaded and fired from within an armored carrier are probably the wave of the future. IF comparing howitzers to mortars, of comparable caliber, both being vehicle mounted, what makes a mortar better? Cost? Not these days, if talking about vehicle mounted, with all the radios, gps, EW, comms, integrate battlefield etc etc. at least in the US Army /procurement system. Range? Howitzers have much longer range. Maybe enough to keep you out of the range of the enemy’s retail drones. Complexity? As with cost, they are close to equal these days. High angle fire? In an urban or mountainous environment, perhaps. There were units in Vietnam that didn’t bother with mortars, as they were always in the range fan of a fire base. Two caveats: Possibly a totally moot discussion, effective artillery in the future might be all rocket (HIMARS) or swarms of drones. The difference between “howitzer” and “breech loading mortar” might get a little blurry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 11:28:54 PM EDT
[#17]
I agree with OP. In future, all artillery should be electric motor driven, not towed. The carbon credits will offset the destruction to Gaia from the artillery barrage. We need a committee.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 11:34:21 PM EDT
[#18]
So the future is self-propelled?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 11:38:25 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So the future is self-propelled? The future is abandoning it to the enemy, if the retreat from A-Stan is any indication. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 11:38:33 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IIRC a cannon battery has over 100 people for 6 cannons. The other thing that doesn't get enough attention is the minimum package size, you can deploy a single HIMARS if you have to, it can receive fire missions by SATCOM or HF. If you need an ammo truck that's two more people and an RSV. If you want to include an FDC, an officer and some ammo trucks you've got two dozen people involved. I don't know what a cannon package would look like but I doubt that's it. Most of the world has 122mm or 130mm rockets in an MFOM pod. 18-20 rounds, 30-36 km range, accuracy is surprisingly good. We could have that too, if we wanted. Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. IIRC a cannon battery has over 100 people for 6 cannons. The other thing that doesn't get enough attention is the minimum package size, you can deploy a single HIMARS if you have to, it can receive fire missions by SATCOM or HF. If you need an ammo truck that's two more people and an RSV. If you want to include an FDC, an officer and some ammo trucks you've got two dozen people involved. I don't know what a cannon package would look like but I doubt that's it. Most of the world has 122mm or 130mm rockets in an MFOM pod. 18-20 rounds, 30-36 km range, accuracy is surprisingly good. We could have that too, if we wanted. Some units practiced two-gun raids, for example. The Paladin units I saw typically had 4 crew in the gun and two in the CAT - maybe a third crewman in the CAT if they were lucky (supposed to be nine total on the TOE). That said. how the US Army would do it, and how it COULD be done if someone wanted to, may be two very different things. Both rocket and tube artillery could be set up to get fire missions by SATCOM, for example, if the systems were coded to do that. If they aren’t, that is a self-imposed limitation, at this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 11:46:40 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some units practiced two-gun raids, for example. That said. how the US Army would do it, and how it COULD be done if someone wanted to, may be two very different things. Both rocket and tube artillery could be set up to get fire missions by SATCOM, for example, if the systems were coded to do that. If they aren’t, that is a self-imposed limitation, at this point. Technical fire direction with MLRS/HIMARS is inherent to the panel, the launcher receives the missile type and target location, calculates a firing solution, lays on the target and fires when you flip the switch. Towed guns aren't like that. You need an FDC. It's an extra step in the process. Which is fine, but even in that two gun raide you're going to have almost as many people as a HIMARS platoon. The difference is that 60 seconds of two M777s is 192 pounds of HE and a platoon of HIMARS is 1260 pounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 11:48:20 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. 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. Same tires that towed artillery have. And exactly what is doing the towing of those artillery pieces - I believe it's a truck. Maybe a lighter 2-1/2 ton truck instead of a 5-ton truck, but still a truck. No, they don't do well off-road, but when you are behind the lines you usually have roads that can be used, even if they aren't as close to your target as you would like and give the enemy a partial location of where you probably are firing from. Not ideal, but when your artillery company of 5 guns costs less than a single armored and tracked artillery piece, most would want 5 guns firing in support instead of 1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 11:52:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Trenches were always a thing >_> Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Just like trenches were a WW1 thing........ 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2024 11:57:00 PM EDT
[#24]
doubt it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2024 12:02:23 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Same tires that towed artillery have. And exactly what is doing the towing of those artillery pieces - I believe it's a truck. Maybe a lighter 2-1/2 ton truck instead of a 5-ton truck, but still a truck. No, they don't do well off-road, but when you are behind the lines you usually have roads that can be used, even if they aren't as close to your target as you would like and give the enemy a partial location of where you probably are firing from. Not ideal, but when your artillery company of 5 guns costs less than a single armored and tracked artillery piece, most would want 5 guns firing in support instead of 1. In the 1950s most towed artillery used a tracked prime mover. I'm not sure when that changed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2024 12:35:12 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Technical fire direction with MLRS/HIMARS is inherent to the panel, the launcher receives the missile type and target location, calculates a firing solution, lays on the target and fires when you flip the switch. Towed guns aren't like that. You need an FDC. It's an extra step in the process. Which is fine, but even in that two gun raide you're going to have almost as many people as a HIMARS platoon. The difference is that 60 seconds of two M777s is 192 pounds of HE and a platoon of HIMARS is 1260 pounds. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Some units practiced two-gun raids, for example. That said. how the US Army would do it, and how it COULD be done if someone wanted to, may be two very different things. Both rocket and tube artillery could be set up to get fire missions by SATCOM, for example, if the systems were coded to do that. If they aren’t, that is a self-imposed limitation, at this point. Technical fire direction with MLRS/HIMARS is inherent to the panel, the launcher receives the missile type and target location, calculates a firing solution, lays on the target and fires when you flip the switch. Towed guns aren't like that. You need an FDC. It's an extra step in the process. Which is fine, but even in that two gun raide you're going to have almost as many people as a HIMARS platoon. The difference is that 60 seconds of two M777s is 192 pounds of HE and a platoon of HIMARS is 1260 pounds. Again: how the US Army does it, and how it COULD be done, may be two different things. Technology is advanced enough you COULD do fire direction with a computer on the gun itself, or handheld, if someone wanted to set up the systems to do it that way. The technology exists, it’s just a self-imposed limitation at this point. (Just like smoke missions to screen - does HIMARS have a smoke ammunition type? Didn’t used to at least, but it easily could, if we wanted to make one). The other point to make is this: sometimes massed effects matter, other times, you just need 100 or 200 pounds in exactly the right spot (although you may need to throw thousands of pounds to get the 200 pounds to hit that exact spot). Maybe you want massed effects to impact at the exact same moment, or for suppression you need some mass over an extended period of time. As I said before, perhaps the Army will follow the Marines and just have rocket arty, and divest itself of any tube artillery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2024 12:41:32 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 155 all the guns, way more lethal. Twice as lethal, 3x the logistical cube, a quarter the barrel life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2024 12:46:10 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Same tires that towed artillery have. And exactly what is doing the towing of those artillery pieces - I believe it's a truck. Maybe a lighter 2-1/2 ton truck instead of a 5-ton truck, but still a truck. No, they don't do well off-road, but when you are behind the lines you usually have roads that can be used, even if they aren't as close to your target as you would like and give the enemy a partial location of where you probably are firing from. Not ideal, but when your artillery company of 5 guns costs less than a single armored and tracked artillery piece, most would want 5 guns firing in support instead of 1. An M777 is probably north of $3m now and the crew costs almost a million a year. If you can half the crew the difference is paid for in a couple of years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2024 1:16:43 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again: how the US Army does it, and how it COULD be done, may be two different things. Technology is advanced enough you COULD do fire direction with a computer on the gun itself, or handheld, if someone wanted to set up the systems to do it that way. The technology exists, it’s just a self-imposed limitation at this point. (Just like smoke missions to screen - does HIMARS have a smoke ammunition type? Didn’t used to at least, but it easily could, if we wanted to make one). The other point to make is this: sometimes massed effects matter, other times, you just need 100 or 200 pounds in exactly the right spot (although you may need to throw thousands of pounds to get the 200 pounds to hit that exact spot). Maybe you want massed effects to impact at the exact same moment, or for suppression you need some mass over an extended period of time. Germans have SMK and mines for MLRS. The also developed a GMLRS round with 4 sensor fuzed weapons, kind of like BONUS for MLRS. Putting the FDC on the gun doesn't help when you need to mass fires to be effective. Suppression (plus rough terrain and high angle) is what towed guns are best at, I think. I never touched one after OBC, FWIW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2024 1:41:19 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The future is abandoning it to the enemy, if the retreat from A-Stan is any indication. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So the future is self-propelled? The future is abandoning it to the enemy, if the retreat from A-Stan is any indication.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2024 1:44:00 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fuck it, lets get some SC carriers already, though I'm not sure if we have enough pylons. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: We dont have one that can lift an m777 YET but we can make one. Ah OK. Thought I was out of the loop on something. That'd be like some Command and Conquer or Starcraft RTS shit.  Fuck it, lets get some SC carriers already, though I'm not sure if we have enough pylons. "Son, let me tell you something...there's never enough pylons... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2024 2:01:09 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is correct. Now imagine we go in a conflict with a near peer adversary. Our expensive shit will be disappearing fast. Towed artillery is better than no artillery. Towed artillery *IS* no artillery if the enemy has drones or counter-battery radar - in very short order. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2024 2:05:33 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IF comparing howitzers to mortars, of comparable caliber, both being vehicle mounted, what makes a mortar better? Cost? Not these days, if talking about vehicle mounted, with all the radios, gps, EW, comms, integrate battlefield etc etc. at least in the US Army /procurement system. Range? Howitzers have much longer range. Maybe enough to keep you out of the range of the enemy’s retail drones. Complexity? As with cost, they are close to equal these days. High angle fire? In an urban or mountainous environment, perhaps. There were units in Vietnam that didn’t bother with mortars, as they were always in the range fan of a fire base. Two caveats: Possibly a totally moot discussion, effective artillery in the future might be all rocket (HIMARS) or swarms of drones. The difference between “howitzer” and “breech loading mortar” might get a little blurry. Big difference is rate of fire and responsiveness, particularly against infantry in the open. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2024 2:07:42 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Same tires that towed artillery have. And exactly what is doing the towing of those artillery pieces - I believe it's a truck. Maybe a lighter 2-1/2 ton truck instead of a 5-ton truck, but still a truck. No, they don't do well off-road, but when you are behind the lines you usually have roads that can be used, even if they aren't as close to your target as you would like and give the enemy a partial location of where you probably are firing from. Not ideal, but when your artillery company of 5 guns costs less than a single armored and tracked artillery piece, most would want 5 guns firing in support instead of 1. Which after the first or second fire mission becomes 2 or less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2024 2:16:30 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Germans have SMK and mines for MLRS. The also developed a GMLRS round with 4 sensor fuzed weapons, kind of like BONUS for MLRS. Putting the FDC on the gun doesn't help when you need to mass fires to be effective. Suppression (plus rough terrain and high angle) is what towed guns are best at, I think. I never touched one after OBC, FWIW. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Again: how the US Army does it, and how it COULD be done, may be two different things. Technology is advanced enough you COULD do fire direction with a computer on the gun itself, or handheld, if someone wanted to set up the systems to do it that way. The technology exists, it’s just a self-imposed limitation at this point. (Just like smoke missions to screen - does HIMARS have a smoke ammunition type? Didn’t used to at least, but it easily could, if we wanted to make one). The other point to make is this: sometimes massed effects matter, other times, you just need 100 or 200 pounds in exactly the right spot (although you may need to throw thousands of pounds to get the 200 pounds to hit that exact spot). Maybe you want massed effects to impact at the exact same moment, or for suppression you need some mass over an extended period of time. Germans have SMK and mines for MLRS. The also developed a GMLRS round with 4 sensor fuzed weapons, kind of like BONUS for MLRS. Putting the FDC on the gun doesn't help when you need to mass fires to be effective. Suppression (plus rough terrain and high angle) is what towed guns are best at, I think. I never touched one after OBC, FWIW. How the Army does FDC includes many self-imposed limitations. Again, if missions can go to a HIMARS from some remote FDC, they could also go to a battery of tube arty, the technology exists. Heck, the ancient FED (Forward Entry Device) and BUCS (Backup Computer System) could calculate data for the guns, and those were decades ago. How the Army chooses to organize rocket launchers and howitzers could be changed on a whim (and frankly, given the re-orgs over the years, seems like it is, sometimes). The differences between rocket launchers and tube artillery boils down to things like range, cost of ammunition, design limitations of the projo’s (the g-forces during firing, etc), and possibly survivability of the projo’s to counter-measures. Possibly the future of artillery units will be to drop off pods of rockets, maybe they get propped up pointing in kinda-sorta the correct direction, and then launched remotely when needed. Or maybe those are boxes of drones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2024 5:59:24 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Son, let me tell you something...there's never enough pylons...  You Must Construct Additional Pylons 10 Hours |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2024 8:49:19 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How the Army does FDC includes many self-imposed limitations. Again, if missions can go to a HIMARS from some remote FDC, they could also go to a battery of tube arty, the technology exists. Heck, the ancient FED (Forward Entry Device) and BUCS (Backup Computer System) could calculate data for the guns, and those were decades ago. How the Army chooses to organize rocket launchers and howitzers could be changed on a whim (and frankly, given the re-orgs over the years, seems like it is, sometimes). The differences between rocket launchers and tube artillery boils down to things like range, cost of ammunition, design limitations of the projo’s (the g-forces during firing, etc), and possibly survivability of the projo’s to counter-measures. Possibly the future of artillery units will be to drop off pods of rockets, maybe they get propped up pointing in kinda-sorta the correct direction, and then launched remotely when needed. Or maybe those are boxes of drones. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Again: how the US Army does it, and how it COULD be done, may be two different things. Technology is advanced enough you COULD do fire direction with a computer on the gun itself, or handheld, if someone wanted to set up the systems to do it that way. The technology exists, it’s just a self-imposed limitation at this point. (Just like smoke missions to screen - does HIMARS have a smoke ammunition type? Didn’t used to at least, but it easily could, if we wanted to make one). The other point to make is this: sometimes massed effects matter, other times, you just need 100 or 200 pounds in exactly the right spot (although you may need to throw thousands of pounds to get the 200 pounds to hit that exact spot). Maybe you want massed effects to impact at the exact same moment, or for suppression you need some mass over an extended period of time. Germans have SMK and mines for MLRS. The also developed a GMLRS round with 4 sensor fuzed weapons, kind of like BONUS for MLRS. Putting the FDC on the gun doesn't help when you need to mass fires to be effective. Suppression (plus rough terrain and high angle) is what towed guns are best at, I think. I never touched one after OBC, FWIW. How the Army does FDC includes many self-imposed limitations. Again, if missions can go to a HIMARS from some remote FDC, they could also go to a battery of tube arty, the technology exists. Heck, the ancient FED (Forward Entry Device) and BUCS (Backup Computer System) could calculate data for the guns, and those were decades ago. How the Army chooses to organize rocket launchers and howitzers could be changed on a whim (and frankly, given the re-orgs over the years, seems like it is, sometimes). The differences between rocket launchers and tube artillery boils down to things like range, cost of ammunition, design limitations of the projo’s (the g-forces during firing, etc), and possibly survivability of the projo’s to counter-measures. Possibly the future of artillery units will be to drop off pods of rockets, maybe they get propped up pointing in kinda-sorta the correct direction, and then launched remotely when needed. Or maybe those are boxes of drones. That has been the debate within the fires combat capability development community for going on 30 years. PGMs have made massed fires unnecessary and the best way to deliver that is via a missile. But they rely on the first requirement for accurate fires, if you cannot achieve that then the fall back is mass, and the best way to deliver mass is via tubes. The age old question is can we afford to fire PGMs on multiple precision locations which don’t the enemy because the enemy did not cooperate and an unfairly hid from us? And how long can the nation afford to fire 2-3 $5M weapons every 15-30 seconds to allow the Cpl to suppress a hill top or treeline so his team can extricate themselves from trouble? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2024 8:56:52 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Circus cannons on our southern border would be good... We're much more likely to provide them to the cartels. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
