el_guapo

Well yeah I know about the Stryker, and stuff having mortar tubes in them, but not the same as the Russian SP mortars. They are capable of direct fire. Yes I know the US had SP 105mm, but that was way back when? Talking about modern times. US has no system. 105mm is just too light. Best as a airborne, or mountain howitzer.

Blademaster

I thought the 2002 version was the best that was fielded out there. It had the most sustainable rate of fire and could fire 12 to 14 rounds in the first minute and had auto loading. It could fire the farthest out of any tube gun and was supposed to be the most accurate one. This was the gold mercedes benz of all SP artillery.

Albany Rifles

The SP is limited in charge when firing anything but "Headlight to Headlight"
So they would have to shift tracks just like a towed will speed shift for that 6400 capability.

It was my understanding that the Paladin had a full 6400 mil coverage at full charge. Of course, I go this from the PM and we know how they can lie!

My belief is you have to have a mix. You SP is fine for open terrain but for air assault/airborne/infatry forces you got to ahve towed. Afganistan in 2002 showed that 120mm mortar DOES NOT replace the capability of 105mm howitzers.

__________________
"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with the negative waves." TSGT Oddball, Tank Commander

Cactus

Are 105mm light guns enough for slightly better prepared foes than the 'bunnies?

Albany Rifles

The 105mm family of munitions which can be fired from the 105 mm howitzers are very effective. They are also have quite effective ranges (out to about 17,500 meters). In the early part of Afghanistan the 10 MD did not deploy with their arty....DOD said they didn't need them....CAS would do the trick. The 10 MD used the infantry's 120mm mortars in support. And they were found wanting for the artillery mission. Later rotations took their M119A1s and used them to great effect. I believe the the Marines and Canadians are using their M777s light 155mm howitzers to great effect.

The key to 105mm use for lighter units is the cubes and weights of resupplying them. Easier than 155mm ammo.

ray dekker

PZH 2000
1 Mobility:

They made a "airtransportable Version" (at least in an Airbus 400) of the PZH 2000 based on the "Mars Rocket launcher chassis" ( "MLRS" international) which is afaik a M48 Tank chassis.
But seems also possible to put the gun modul on other carriers

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann – AGM – Ihr Partner rund um Wehrtechnik

Sorry this one is in german, see page 16 for pictures:
http://www.kmweg.de/KMW%20Corporate%20DE.pdf


2 Effectiveness:

With a Denel made ammunition it was possible to reach 56 KM, only limited by size of the shooting ranch. Would have been possible to shoot at least 60 KM:

Krauss-Maffei Wegmann – Ihr Partner rund um Wehrtechnik
(sorry could find this one also only in german, but think it must exist somewhere on the english page of KMW also.)

So they shoot faster and have a far more better range- may be you need less, man and equippment for the same task?


This french solution is also interessting regarding transportation:

Terre

try this one also:

Camion équipé d'un système d'artillerie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding the 120 mm Mortars, this is the german solution, but only for Para`s and light Infantery:

Wieselsteuer
german, scroll down to "Wiesel 2 Mörser 120 mm"


Rheinmetall AG
english

Gun Grape

They can shoot green bag, white bag, and 119 the full 6400mills. Its when you get to the M203 and the higher MACs charges that you cannot go past the headlights. Busting a torsion bar isn't a cool thing.



Of course not. Mortars belong to the guys named after the sound you make when taking a crap. 105MM Howitzers belong to the King Of Battle.

Gun Grape

yes, modern 105mm Pre Formed Fragmentation rounds have the same killing and casualty radius as the standard 155mm M107 HE round.

Albany Rifles

Easy there GG, we grunts wouldn't want you red legs to break a nail or anything!

Triple C

horribly ignorant question: what's the difference in roles between rocket and conventional artillery?

__________________
What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline.
-Augustine of Hippo

Albany Rifles

Oversimplified

Tube artiilery (i.e., conventional) has the mission of direct support to maneuver forces because of its greater accuracy and wide range of munitions available.

Rocket artillery was more of a counterbattery and/or area fire weapon since they tended to use submunitions and longer range. Rockets are also more efficient for deploying chemical munitions.

However with the newer, GPS guided MLRS rounds, we are seeing MLRS being used in the direct attack mission, albeit at longer ranges than the tube artillery.

I would welocme a better definition from any one of the Red Legs on this board.

HistoricalDavid

MLRS is better for shoot-n-scoot since it has a higher RoF, AFAIK. It can shoot its load a lot quicker and start moving again to avoid counterbattery fire and keep the enemy guessing.

__________________
HD Ready?

S-2

"MLRS is better for shoot-n-scoot..."

"Better"? I don't know. Different realm of fires. They need to be quick. Their signature is horrendous.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

gunnut

Tubes have better sustained rate of fire while rockets have high volume of instantaneous fire?

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

HistoricalDavid

I'm speaking from reading but since they can be on the move quicker, wouldn't it result in the enemy pounding freshly vacated dirt?