furkensturker

The Australian Army is doing user trials on "self propelled artillery"
I believe they are looking at the Palidin and a German version.
Can anyone expand further and give pros and cons for both?

Freddie

__________________
I'm the Happiness Fairy. I've sprinkled happy dust on you.
So Smile dammit. This sh1t's expensive.
Bulla Fiax concouria quantium vis

Bluesman

I can't give any info on the two systems, but I do have a generic comment on this:

You're not a serious army until you've gotten rid of towed artillery systems, and gone to SPARTY. The utility of what is essentially fixed guns (at the pace a really modern army operates, towed is essentially, 'fixed') is minimal. Basically, there are only certain circumstances in which they're marginally useful, and as a HUGE part of any combined arms force, a commander cannot be thinking, 'How can I set the battlefield just so, in order to bring my otherwise-useless guns to bear?'

This decision shows that Australia means to make their army USEFUL, in a 21st Century sense. Just what I'd expect from 'em, and a move away from seeing the armed forces as some sort of national 'works' program or a social laboratory, or even worse, a drain on social programs, like so many other Western countries do.

Go, OZZIES!

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Maxor

Personally I think there is a place for lighter towed weapons unlike bluesman, but for most artillery uses I agree that selfpropelled is far preferable. However in many circumstances a small towed field peice can be used in a matter similair to a mortar and used direct fire as a peice against lighter armoured vechiles (wouldn't work well against a mbt but should be ok with something like a bmp or LAV). Also useful against pillboxes. I'm pretty much saying that attaching a M8 type weapon a mechanized light infantry company isn't a bad idea It's not optimal but I'd rather have that than just hummers or technicals.

Officer of Engineers

Towed pieces still have their place, especially in mountain warfare and air insert forces. A good towed battery can be set up in 10 minutes and their trucks can carry far more ordnance, less maintenance, and uses less fuel than an equivalent SPH battery. Most certainly, I do not want to support SPHs in a fire support base. That's way too much digging.

__________________
Chimo

S-2

"Most certainly, I do not want to support SPHs in a fire support base. That's way too much digging."

Hard to have overhead cover for a towed system and still shoot 6400 mils out of a star formation on a FSB. If I have to take incoming and can't displace, make mine S.P.

Still, OoE, the operational mobility of towed cannon is critical to guys like the 101st in particular. The 101st was able to leap 200+kms with a brigade during Desert Storm into an FOB. Guns were shooting within 20 minutes. That's unbelievable operational mobility and the firepower provided by that F.A. battalion air-assaulted in just behind the initial lifts was critical to mission success, IIRC.

Towed is perfect in Afghanistan. The counterfire threat is minimal and all the other towed-skewed advantages abound.

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

HistoricalDavid

Can wheeled trucks really match the mobility of tracked SPGs in that sort of terrain?

__________________
HD Ready?

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

Feanor

Doesn't the U.S. marine corps still use towed guns?

Bluesman

I submit. I was thinking of mainline/'heavy' units. But for lighter forces, yeah, I can see that.

But for what Australia wants 'em for, SPARTY is the way to go.

Gun Grape

Yes the Marine Corps uses only towed artillery. We got rid of all the SP arty after Desert Storm.

If Australia plans to use their guns as part of a US Army task force than SP is the way to go.

If they plan to do independant operations and Timor type ops, SPs will be of limited use.

Towed artillery offers improved strategic mobility. You can get there using less planes or less ships for the same amount of tubes. Less space for the gun means more space for the ammo.

Towed arty allows for more flexability in movement.

A SP is road or hard soil dependant. A towed howitzer can be airlifted anywhere.

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.

In 2d and 3d world countries there is the problem of low bridge load ratings restricting mobility. A truck and gun weights much less that a 27 ton M-109

Just as important the prime mover is the gun itself. Throw a track,or the engine break down and you have just lost one of your tubes.

If the prime mover (truck) has a flat or the engine goes down, you cross load to another 5/7 ton in your convoy. I've hooked up to the supply truck more than once.

A commander plans his fire support assets like any other. A Bde should have 1 Btry providing fires, 1 btry on the move and 1 btry getting firecaped.

In the case of a long run where everyone is moving and then hits a "Bump" ARTEP/MCCRS standard for the M-777 is 5 min from reciept of fire mission
to guns ready to fire. (hipshoot) The old standard for the M-198 was 7 min.

The M-198 could be laid, 1 aiming point out and a round on the loading tray
in 3 min from the time the 5 ton stopped.

That all said, on a cold rainy day make mine a M-109. If the heater is working.

For reference, I've been a gunbunny on M-109A1, M-109A3, M-110A2 (All SPs) and M-114, M-101 and M-198s (Towed). So I've got a little lanyard time on every gun used in the last 40 yrs (excluding the new M-777)

S-2

With towed, you can ride the trails during the direct-fire shoots. A gas at chg. 7 on the old M101A1! Courtesy of Rakkasan but it's my old battalion so I don't feel a bit bad about borrowing.

Oh, and no, that's that not an M101A1 but the M119.

Attached Images

Direct Fire.jpg (172.0 KB, 147 views)

furkensturker

Self propelles V towed?

Each had it's advantages and disadvantages, horses for courses I suppose, but while everyone has been tooing and froing on the pros and cons, you're all closing the door after the horse has bolted and crying over spilt milk for the one that got away (can't think of any more cliches)

Focus people What are the differences between the Palidan and the German equivalent.

At the moment the only difference I can see is where it's made and when a shell misses, a voice in the machine says "dumkopf" or "Sum*****"

Freddie

Feanor

The German one is the Panzerhaubitze 2000 right?
Paladin
Weight 27.5 tons
Length 30 ft (9.1 m)
Width 10.3 ft (3.1 m)
Height 10.7 ft (3.3 m)
Crew 8 (Gun Commander, Driver, 6 x Gunners)
Primary
armament M126 155 mm Howitzer
Secondary
armament .50 caliber (12.7 mm) M2 machine gun
Engine diesel
Suspension torsion-bar
Operational
range 216 mi (350 km)
Speed 35 mph (56 km/h)
Rate of fire 4 round/min maximum, 1 round/min sustained
PzH2000
Weight 55.3 tons combat loaded
Length 11.7 m (38.4 feet)
Width 3.6 m (11.8 feet)
Height 3.1 m (10.2 feet)
Crew 5 (Commander, Driver, Gunner, 2 Loaders)
Primary
armament Rheinmetall 155 mm L52 Artillery Gun
Secondary
armament Rheinmetall MG3 7.62 mm machine gun
Engine MTU 881 Ka-500
986 hp
Power/weight 17.83 hp/ton
Suspension torsion bar
Operational
range 420 km
Speed 60 km/h (37 mph)
Rate of Fire
# 3 rounds less than 10 seconds
# 10 rounds per minute (for 1 minute)
# 20 rounds less than 2 minutes 10 seconds
# 8 rounds per minute (for 3 minutes)
# 3 rounds per minute sustained rate of fire until system is out of ammunition

Gun Grape

PzH 2000 wins hands down. Longer range, more accurate,smaller crew, higher rate of fire and based on the Leopard tank chassis. A vehicle that the Australians once used.

However it is less strategic mobile.

S-2

Looks like the bofors Archer might be your best bet. Rated to fire precision munitions. Light.

SP, I'd take the M109A6. About twenty tons lighter than the PzH. 39 cal vs. 52 cal barrel. Lose 9km in range. Easier to ship, obviously. Add the M-992 FAASV back and you've two vehicles for slightly more weight than one PzH 2000. Secure ammo transfer. More ammo. Dispersed ammo. All good. Common chassis. Don't believe that an ammo vehicle is available for the PzH 2000. 56tons, if I recall. Built on a Leopard II chassis, so it's a beast.

Archer would work in Papua better than the M109A6 or PzH 2000 probably. But you'll retain two regiments (battalions) of 105mm M119 in your reserves. They could loan the weapons back easily enough. Fire support to one mechanized brigade on a sustained deployment seems the mission requirements.