ArmchairGeneral

I thought mortars were by definition indirect fire weapons.

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

Gun Grape

There isn't many RedLegs around here. I have to get my shots in when I can.

And "Grunt type" It was my understanding that you had morphed into a pogue many years ago

But,I don't think that thread (pogue stories) has been done on this board. (yet)

BTW, Good "barney style" explanation on the difference between tube and rocket arty.

But all those things you mentioned, except for RoF, had nothing to do with the gun. Those were all ammo improvments.

You may not believe this, but even a good towed arty crew, if they have the prepared ammo on deck, can kick out 12-15 RPM.

Can do it on an M198 till the needle in the TWD cracks the glass.

Can do it if you use ramming staffs instead of the rammer on the M109s

That being said, a high RoF isn't as important now as it was in the old days.
Back when we practiced Zone and Sweep missions with HE, each gun had to fire lots of ammo in a short time to get good effect on a large target. Now we can shoot way less ICM rounds for better effect on a larger target area.

Or we shoot less, but more precise rounds on a pinpoint target.

Another disadvantage of that high RoF. Crusader could fire 10 RPM. It
only carried 48 rounds, with another 48 on the ammo carrier. So after 10 min of firing the battery is out of rounds. Do you know how many HOURs it takes to resupply an artillery battery? Hours that the unit would be combat ineffective. Especially a magazine system like Crusader had.

S-2

"You may not believe this, but even a good towed arty crew, if they have the prepared ammo on deck, can kick out 12-15 RPM."

Maybe 15 RPM on a 105mm with a good gunner. It gets unsafe beyond that, IMHO.

"Back when we practiced Zone and Sweep missions with HE, each gun had to fire lots of ammo in a short time to get good effect on a large target."

That's a LOT of training ammunition. I assume those were the last missions shot on LFXs?

"Can do it if you use ramming staffs instead of the rammer on the M109s"

Elbows and a-holes everywhere. It can look like a Chinese fire-drill.

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

Deltacamelately

Sorry Col for the delay...was Engaged somewhere.
From the Indian Army perspective, any new system that is desired is expected to:

a.Allow for eengagements at the greatest range possible.
b.Allow automatic high angle and 360º traverse capability.
c.Allow flexibility of employment (including in the direct fire role and NBC environment). This is because high angle engagement is of particular importance in the mountains, against both Pakistan and the China. Years of dueling across the LoC in Kashmir and at Siachen demonstrates the value of weapons capable of firing at a high angle in order to achieve crest clearance and bring down fire on reverse sloped. Since it is difficult for artillery to accompany units moving off the main axis on flanking mameuvers or special tasks, a system’s traverse capabilities determine the efficacy with which an artillery detachment can cover - from existing gun areas - an advance both along the main axis and on an outflanking maneuver. The ideal system is therefore one that has a high trajectory and offers max traverse.
d.Allow maximm flexibility in tactical deployment and intersector movement.
e.Allow for eease of maintenance and economy of operations.
There are two sides to this requirement. First, the guns should be able to rapidly change positions so as to avoid counter battery fire. The inadequacy of the FHB-77B in this respect during Kargil brought into sharper focus the need to deploy highly mobile systems in difficult terrain. Second, guns should be easily deployable to any theatre of combat. A few guns were reportedly lost after they slid off precipitous hillsides whilst negotiating sharp bends along National Highway 1A. The compactness of self-propelled systems reduces overall bulk and volume, and hence turn radius, thereby allowing for safer transportation in difficult theatres of operation such as jungles, mountains and marshes.
f. Be affordable.
This requirement is partly covered by point 3 (traverse/high angle). However, there are two more issues that are covered by this point. First, given recent nuclearization in South Asia the artillery expects its system to be operable in an NBC environment. Second, based on historical experience (1965, 1971) the artillery expect the system to be flexible enough that it allows a detachment to train their weapons in defence of gun areas (in the direct fire mode) against attacks at close range, if the need arises. This requirement is the flip side of need for the High angle engagement capability and may require weapons to engage targets at depressed angles. In such a situation the need for maximum traverse becomes extremely impoetant.

__________________
I am the DARK that Rise to Kill..And Soar to Redeem!

Officer of Engineers

Major,

Are you not asking too much of tube artillery? It would seems from your description that separate systems of mortars, tube artillery, and rocket artillery would do the job much better.

Also, just effective was Pak counter-battery? From the reports that I have read, you were experiencing 20-30 rounds an hour (I would like to know if this was wrong). Hardly a test for true battery and counter-battery operations.

__________________
Chimo

Albany Rifles

BTW, I am probably one fo the only grunts you would meet who is honored to have been inducted into the Order of Saint Barbara...and a graduate of FAOBC!

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

Deltacamelately

Sir, my assumption is not for or against any particular system, whether towed...SP...etc etc. I am more concerned about mobility performance prediction for towed and self-propelled artillery and related vehicles for several terrain and weather conditions using the Army mobility model (AMM) and a simple model for making GO/NOGO predictions termed the JIFFY mobility model. Performance predictions are in terms of (a) percentage of a country with a given 'probability of GO'; (b) speed profile and statistical diagnostics for primary roads, secondary roads, trails, and off-road; (c) performance index; (d) average speed for supply network; (e) selected mobility level rating speed; (f) vehicle group performance; and (g) time to complete special artillery missions. Though I have been trying to study methods or parameters which are considered as best for comparing the relative mobility of (i) the prime movers, (ii) the prime mover-towed artillery and self-propelled artillery, and (iii) group performance of selected vehicles

I wouldn't suggest their battery to be super effective but again it seems 20-30 rounds an hour is a skewed stat.

Officer of Engineers

Major,

I can understand your desire to do everything but it really sounded to me that you want howitzers to do mortar jobs. Isn't there a point where you have to say that ain't my job and let others more capable do theirs, ie battalion mortars.

Deltacamelately

Lol. Though I partially agree with you. Specialised task have to go to specialised units...but again I wouldn't trade howitzers with Mortars.

el_guapo

MRLS has much longer range than tube artillery. Howitzers have shorter range, but have a better trajectory for indirect fire. They carry more explosive "proportionally." Same reason why howitzers are preferred over guns. MRLS have flat trajectory, but much greater hitting power, because of the velocity they fly at. 4.8 inch Russian MLRS had better hitting power than the 4.8 inch howitzer. MLRS are about as accurate. Fact is the longer range you fire, the more inaccurate the fire is even with long range tube cannons such as 52 caliber canons, or greater. That's why the Crusader was designed to operate with the Excaliber in mind. Otherwise you wouldn't hit a barnyard even if you are lucky such as about 50km range. If you wanted a tube canon to have comparable range with the US MLRS system, it's likely going to have to be a big, and really bulky system with less rate of fire, and simply too heavy, even heavier than a MLRS system probably. MLRS is king of counter battery. Howitzers are good for infantry support with sustained rate of fire. MLRS is a good for barrages, though there is guided rockets used. I really didn't like the Crusader program from the beginning. I just don't think it's needed.

el_guapo

Mortars can be fired directly, just need stabilizing fins, or a special round that can stabilize itself. Most mortars come from the vein of trench mortars. Very small in size to fit in trenches ala WW1, and steep firing trajectory making the rounds more lethal than firing at a flatter trajectory because of the schrapnel despersion pattern. Machineguns, and mortars made a good combination, and still are a good combination. Conventional mortars don't have a recoil system, or not a strong one, that's why they sit on the ground so the recoil can be asorbed by the earth. Mortars can fire directly, but you must take into account of these factors. Russians have a howitzer-mortar hybrid that can fire mortar mines, and howitzer rounds, because the Nona-K is rifled, breech loaded light canon. It can fire 10 lethal rounds per minute sustained. It can fire directly like a howitzer, and have the steep firing trajectory of a mortar as well. It has a firing range of a heavy mortar, and a hydroneumatic system of a howitzer. It's a intermediary between full mortars, and howitzers. Not as heavy as a howitzer, etc, etc.

Dreadnought

The other night I watched an interesting program on the "Archer" what do you guys think of it so far?

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Khan_Han

The only modern (NATO Standard) platform I would suggest for Australia is the Turkish Developed (ASELSAN) T-155 FIRTINA Self Propelled Howitzer. It's technologically advanced yet dead cheap to commission. Turkey has 300 in its inventory and they a doing alot of work as we speak on the Turkey-Iraq border.

Several NATO countries have also commissioned such system. It also utilises the NATO Armament Ballistic Kernel (NABK) and has a very highly advanced fire-control system.

________

T-155 Self-Propelled FIRTINA (TUSpH STORM) Fire Control System provides the following basic functions;

- Providing wired and wireless digital communications with Field Artillery Battery Fire Direction Center, Company Fire Support Team Headquarters, Forward Observers, Battery Executive Officer/Platoon Leaders, Artillery Meteorology System, Tactical Fire Direction Computer System and other fire support units,
- Operation in different unit organizations (e.g. battery based, platoon based and single gun single battery) as required by the tactical environment,
- Gunner’s Display Unit together with the application software provides the mission oriented, menu driven colored graphical user interface to ease of system operation,
- Display of battlefield information on a digital map; e.g. fire support coordination measures, target locations, known points, registration points, command posts, friendly and hostile units, terrain data,
- Receiving and displaying fire request, fire orders, commands, formatted and free text messages sent by the Field Artillery Battery Fire Direction Center and other fire support units,
- Rapid deployment and relocation by means of Navigation Systems providing the vehicle position accurately,
- Geographical north, the vehicle’s own position and altitude above sea level are determined automatically with great accuracy,
- Processing fire missions; e.g. time on target, fire for effect, adjustment fire and registration fire,
- Computation of firing commands using "NATO Armament Ballistic Kernel (NABK)" by including the ground slopes and other mechanical effects to the ballistic calculations,
- Using meteorological data received from Artillery Meteorology System via radio,
- Using muzzle velocity data received from the on-board Muzzle Velocity Radar integrated to the Fire Control Computer,
- Calculation of the projectile trajectory and checking for crest clearance using Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED),
- Automatically laying and relaying the gun at high speed and precision using the elevation and azimuth data provided by Fire Control Computer during the fire mission,
- Checking the sensors for temperature, travel lock, turret lock, mechanical limits, alignment accuracy to provide safe and proper operation,
- Integration and synchronization of ammunition loading and hydraulic control system during gun laying,
- Semi-automatic backup mode for the manual positioning of the the gun, using Assistant Gunner’s Display Unit in case Fire Control Computer fails,
- Sending gun status, fire mission reports, formatted and free text messages to the Field Artillery Battery Fire Direction Center and other fire support units,
- Ballistic calculations for all NATO ammunitions,
- Data communications via VHF/FM Tactical Frequency Hoping Radios and field wires using ASELSAN Tactical Data/Internet Communication Units (VIA),
- Supporting advanced data communications protocols; MIL-STD-188-220, MIL-STD-2045-47001
- Providing digital interoperability with other C4I Systems within the force,


See Aselsan.com.tr - T 155 Self Propelled FIRTINA Howitzer Fire Control System

Khan_Han

....

Ucar

Just to set the record straight...

The total requirement of TAF is 300 units. As of 2007 a reported 100+units were accepted. So currently the inventory holds less than 300 units.

As for its price, it would be very nice if you could provide some statistics and comparison of final unit prices with similar systems. Especially a comprehensive comparison with such similar systems as G-6 and PzH 2000 would be very informative. There were early reports that a T-155 would cost around 3,2 m USD per unit, however, I do not have access to current cost calculations now.

As for Australia's options to buy a new K-9 based howitzer from Turkey, the K-9 and K-10 systems are already offered to the Australian Army.

Raytheon Australia