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.

  • 3348
    MEMBERS
  • 190070
    MESSAGES
  • 11
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Cav vs arty   General Army topics

Started 23-May by graylion; 1189 views.
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 

graylion

From: graylion

24-May

schnuersi said:

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.

But - a proper GIS already contains info that puts a 1:5000 scale map to shame. Which what I meant by the home advantage.

17thfabn

From: 17thfabn

24-May

scnuersi

"

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.

graylion

From: graylion

25-May

schnuersi said:

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.

Have the Elephants arrived yet?

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

25-May

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

But still there is whole logistics for all the unguided ammo that needs to be supplied for a duration..

Yes, but the logistics are there. Its organised and the equipment for supplying large amounts of conventional ammo is established. In the Russian military as well as UA and NATO. The logistics argument only would cut it if ONLY guided shells would be used and the logistics are downsized because of this. Which creates a different set of problems.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

At what kind of distance is the shrapnel dangerous to basic armored veihicles that have maybe all round protection to 7.62x51

The STANAG levels als give numbers for protection against fragmentation. STANAG K3 (7,62x51 AP) will resists shrapnels from a 155 mm shell going off at 60 m distance.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

25-May

For starters it depends on how you define kill raduis.

In the '80 the standard shell of the US still was the M107 which is not exactly a great design. Its performance is rather poor and erratic. This shell indeed has a suprisingly small effective burst radius.
Which is why it was replaced by the M549 from the early '80 on. Which is far better. The 150 m I mentioned are for M549 and later generations of shells. But even back in the day a realistic effective radius has been in the ballpark of 100 m.
I mentioned the STANAG protection against artillery fragments in another post. K1 level protecon only protects against fragments from a 155 mm shell going off at 100 m so a 80 m effective radius is obviously a low estimate.
Most likely its either assuming a very unfortunate impact at a shallow angle into soft soil etc or it has a high fragment number for a small target area defined as effective.

TOP