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.

  • 3346
    MEMBERS
  • 190043
    MESSAGES
  • 2
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Cav vs arty   General Army topics

Started 23-May by graylion; 1184 views.
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.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

25-May

graylion said:

Have the Elephants arrived yet?

This information is not open to the public.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

26-May

schnuersi said:

define kill raduis

This is an important question.

Rheinmetal had a brochure testing their hand grenades which showed their testing method. Lethal radius was distance at which at least 1 fragment per m2 of the radius was penetrating a 2mm sheet of (unspecified alloy) aluminum sheet.

Using that methodology I'd be astounded if a 155mm had 100m lethal radius due to the m2 of a 200m circle. It's just a gigantic area to try to evenly blanket with shrapnel, especially shrapnel large enough to retain penetration out to 100m distance. 

...

On the flipside, I have no trouble believing that there may be large, random fragments flying out to 150m+ with lethal effect. But I think you'd be pretty unlucky to catch one at that distance. 

In reply toRe: msg 27
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

26-May

Heres a fascinating paper on fragmentation with info on Excalibur:

https://www.daaam.info/Downloads/Pdfs/science_books_pdfs/2015/Sc_Book_2015-020.pdf

And a look into fragmentation patterns:

Theres a lot more in the paper

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

26-May

gatnerd said:

Rheinmetal had a brochure testing their hand grenades which showed their testing method. Lethal radius was distance at which at least 1 fragment per m2 of the radius was penetrating a 2mm sheet of (unspecified alloy) aluminum sheet.

The aluminum is only unspecified in the unclassified brochures. Wittness plates are standardised by NATO. This includes the alloy.

gatnerd said:

Using that methodology I'd be astounded if a 155mm had 100m lethal radius due to the m2 of a 200m circle.

True.
I did not assume a target area of 1 m^2. Which is roughly the target area of a standing human. I assumed a truck/APC sized target or small building. Seriously who would shoot a fire mission of 155 mm against a single man.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

26-May

gatnerd said:

Heres a fascinating paper on fragmentation with info on Excalibur:

Found the paper yesterdays as well and skimmed over it.
I had the impression that its allmost an ad for Excalibur. They basically acknowledge the difference in cost per shot is huge but their conclusion is in a nutshell "doesn't matter".
Only it does. As mentioned the price difference is in the ballpark of 1/100. According to their own example (Fig.1 you posted) using conventional ammo is cheaper. Which is allmost ironic because IMHO the numbers in Fig.1 are very biased to make Excalibur look good.
25 rounds of 155 mm to engage an infantry platoon... seriously?

In my experience from the '90 and from what I have seen since then, including footage from UA, artillery is amazingly accurate. In the UA weapons threat there has been footage posted of artillery strikes observed by drones and they basically score direct hits on vehicle sized targets after a few shots. With conventional unguided shells. This fits to what I experienced. A CEP of 250 m sounds a lot but the statistical spread is not even. The 250 m are defined by the outliers. Even with conventional shells if the center of the CEP is guided onto the target by an FO there will be a direct hit with a few shells. Depending on the equipment of the FO a few might mean the second shell.
I have witnessed FOs putting the beaten zone right onto a moving target without ranging shots. This was in the M109A3GEA2 days.
Same with 120 mm mortars. These would easily score direct hits on pillbox sized targets with a 9 round fire mission observed by a non dedicated FO from a supported unit.

TOP