gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3339
    MEMBERS
  • 189793
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Cav vs arty   General Army topics

Started 23-May by graylion; 1160 views.
schnuersi

From: schnuersi

24-May

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

i imagine that wheeled Cesar is far better suited to the Ukrainian situation.

I disagree.
Cesar is wheeled and thus has limited off road mobility. Its also concidrable less well protected. Especially when in firing position. It also takes longer to switch from firing position to move and vice versa. What we are currently seeing in Ukraine is pretty much exactly the scenario for which PzH2000 has been developed.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

24-May

Cesar can self deploy much easier and in regards to training is basically close old-fashioned towed artilery and now the land is dry so less of an issue than in February. PZH can , do more but getting it into action takes more logistical effort and i can imagine much more training for the crews

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

24-May

graylion said:

Whereas Archer and PzH2000 are autoloaders.

PzH2000 does not have a true autoloader. Only the shell is handled automatically. The charge is loaded by a loader. Its a semi auto loader so to speak.

graylion said:

The latter 2 could be used very quickly against multiple targets.

This capability is not because of the autoloader. Its because of the fire controll. Ceasar might also have this capability. If the FC network is able to feed the required data fast enough neither of these weapons systems has this capability.
In general the capabilities of artillery are only to a small degree defined by the actual guns. Its mostly about C3 and logistics. The best gun in the world is useless if you can't feed it target data or ammo.

graylion

From: graylion

24-May

schnuersi said:

graylion said: Whereas Archer and PzH2000 are autoloaders. PzH2000 does not have a true autoloader. Only the shell is handled automatically. The charge is loaded by a loader. Its a semi auto loader so to speak. graylion said: The latter 2 could be used very quickly against multiple targets. This capability is not because of the autoloader. Its because of the fire controll. Ceasar might also have this capability. If the FC network is able to feed the required data fast enough neither of these weapons systems has this capability. In general the capabilities of artillery are only to a small degree defined by the actual guns. Its mostly about C3 and logistics. The best gun in the world is useless if you can't feed it target data or ammo.

well :) 

https://youtu.be/2Cg_WPUJdlE

  • Edited 24 May 2022 13:45  by  graylion
schnuersi

From: schnuersi

24-May

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

i can see course corrected artillery shells as an absolutely needed as standard

Why? The open countryside is great for using conventional ammo. Area targets and little danger of colateral damage.
BTW the fact that the impact craters are spread all over the countyside on the pictures says nothing about the level of accuracy artillery can achieve. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that one side fired a lot of shells into that area.
 

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

even with high cost i can't imagine the effective cost to be more than the ammo spent otherwise.

This is not the case. Not even close. An Excalibur shell costs 100.000-150.000 € a piece. While a conventional 155 HE shell comes at less than 1000 €. That is 1/100-1/150 so in the worst case 100 convetional rounds could be fired for the cost of ONE guided shell. This isn't even a contest.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

but still when you are trying to hit into a trench you are hitting a target maybe 1m wide and

Nobody tries that.
A fire mission against a field fortification is usually a mix of airburst, impact quick and impact delay. Number, order and mixture depend on the circumstances.
A 1 m wide trench most likely won't be hit even by an Excalibur shell since it has a CEP of 10 m. Still way to too much. Trenches as such aren't usually attacked by artillery. A certain strongpoint or section of trench is. Usually its enough to supress it. Airburst will do that. So an assault team can either close in or the strongpoint can be bypassed.
The weapon of choice for digging defender out of trenches is the mortar. A fire mission from a 120 mm mortar battery guided by a FO will usually score hits close enough to damage a trench. Direct hits into the trench are not uncommon.

The CEP needs to be viewed in context. While 260 m CEP sounds a lot a 155 mm shell has an effective burst radius of 150 m. So if two shells are fired and each lands at one of the extreme ends of the ellipse the target at the center point will be still inside the burst radius of both shells. The propability that a 3 round fire mission will be effective is in the 99% range.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

24-May

graylion said:

well :)

If this video would be the truth and the UA has the literal "killer app" why haven't they won yet and why do they request more help. So there must be more to the story.
My guess is the UA lacks the capability to make use of this every where all the time. If they manage it works great but it seems especially in the East they lack the means or the Russian interfere so effective it doesn't work. IMHO it is doubtfull if just delivering more or more advanced artillery will change this.

graylion

From: graylion

24-May

schnuersi said:

If this video would be the truth and the UA has the literal "killer app" why haven't they won yet and why do they request more help. So there must be more to the story. My guess is the UA lacks the capability to make use of this every where all the time. If they manage it works great but it seems especially in the East they lack the means or the Russian interfere so effective it doesn't work. IMHO it is doubtfull if just delivering more or more advanced artillery will change this.

What I am thinking is that they may well lack the artillery // drones // stuff to make proper use of this. So TBH I do think that delivery of more artillery will help. Using GIS for artillery direction strikes me as using the home advantage with a vengence. This does not negate your point that the is likely more to the story - after all, there always is.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

24-May

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

and now the land is dry so less of an issue than in February.

Less of an issue is not no issue. Cross country tracked vehicles outperform wheeled vehicles. By a conciderable margin.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Cesar can self deploy much easier and in regards to training is basically close old-fashioned towed artilery

Because this is pretty much what Caesar is. Its a traditional towed howitzer mounted directly on the towing vehicle. It has no protection for the crew and the level of automation is low. Its ammo load is very low, it needs to be acompanied by a truck.
Systems like Caesar used to be en vouge in the last two decades. They are easy to deploy, have a low logistical footprint and are good enough for COIN, LIC and against third world miliaries. Most important they are cheap. Compared to true armored SPGs their capabilities are severly limited.

I do agree that it will be a serious challenge for UA to bring systems like PzH2000 into the fight. It will be intresting to see if they do and how they perform.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

24-May

graylion said:

So TBH I do think that delivery of more artillery will help.

That is the thing. Just delivering will achieve nothing.
The systems need to arrive in the theatre and get into the fight. That is the problematic part.

graylion said:

Using GIS for artillery direction strikes me as using the home advantage with a vengence.

GIS is just a means to distribute the information. You need to get the information first. Should the Russians be able to counter recon drones even if its just temporary and in a limited area the ability to find targets will be severly reduced. Even if not drones can not cover all ground all the time. Things like counter battery radar and artillery recon and guidance radar can cover much more space.
The UA has several 2S7 pieces with a range above 45 km. If this GIS system would work as advertised everywhere all the time these guns should be super effective and one of the UAs main assets. But there is remarkable little information about them.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

24-May

good points

I taught Excalibur is much more expensive, i imagine retrofit course correction fuzes that are about 50m CEP are cheaper 

I imagine for the Russians the cost for unguided vs guided ratio is likely more than 100:1 as you assume for the western militaries. But still there is whole logistics for all the unguided ammo that needs to be supplied for a duration..

At what kind of distance is the shrapnel dangerous to basic armored veihicles that have maybe all round protection to 7.62x51  , i once saw the shelling effects on armor In Croatia and was surprised fragments went through armor plate-like hot knife trough butter 

TOP