This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 26-May by schnuersi
Latest 12-Aug by SiverSurfeR
Latest 12-Aug by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 11-Aug by JPeelen
Latest 10-Aug by autogun
Latest 10-Aug by schnuersi
Latest 5-Aug by mpopenker
Latest 3-Aug by nincomp
Latest 3-Aug by dudutin
Latest 1-Aug by stancrist
Latest 31-Jul by gatnerd
Latest 27-Jul by Guardsman26
Latest 26-Jul by Refleks
I get that MLRS would be mucho better, but it would appear not to be happening :(
The lack of MLRS/HIMARS is quite frustrating:
The lack of MLRS/HIMARS is quite frustrating: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/18/biden-resists-ukrainian-demands-long-range-rocket-launchers-00033473
Yeah, I read that which is why I asked the silly question
The main problem is the lack of availability of basically everything.
Because of the downsizing of the western European armies and the focus on COIN in the last two decades there are very few heavy weapons available.
While there might be some Leo2 in storage these are certainly not in a usable condition and not of the latest version. It would take month if not years to scrape enough modern tanks, IFV and support vehicles togeather to equip an army to conduct combined arms manoeuvers.
Training the troops would take time but its not really the problem. This is a problem for the systems that actually are available.
I doubt that even enough MARS systems are available to equip the UA in sufficient numbers.
How many rockets are on storage also is uncertain.
The reason "they could shoot at Russian territory" is obviously a smoke screen. UA can do that with the delivered howitzers and BM21 too. If the very longe range rockets are not delivered MLRS would not be better at hitting "strategic" targets than 2S7 which the UA allready has.
The MLRS launchers alone wouldn't help anyways. Without proper fire controll and targeting information its ability for effective counter battery is limited. So such capabilities would have to be delivered too. Things like counter battery radar. MLRS also has a large logistical footprint. Getting it to the frontline in eastern Ukraine and keeping it supplied would be a real challenge.
The PzH 2000 on which UA artillerymen are currently being trained also is great at counter battery. Depending on ammo used it can outrange any conventional artillery piece in the Russian inventory. The one exception would be BM30. But I really do not see how a handfull of these will make a real difference and how UA will get them to the frontline, supply and protect them there.
Supposedly first Cesar in Ukraine, while PZH2000 might be the pinnacle of SPG Artillery , i imagine that wheeled Cesar is far better suited to the Ukrainian situation. But still when we are talking about couple dozen artillery pieces they will likely not make a dramatic impact.
Mr. T (MrT4) said:
Supposedly first Cesar in Ukraine, while PZH2000 might be the pinnacle of SPG Artillery , i imagine that wheeled Cesar is far better suited to the Ukrainian situation. But still when we are talking about couple dozen artillery pieces they will likely not make a dramatic impact. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3PWPtnyJzzs
Thanks for the link. I've been wondering about this. Ceasar is manually loaded IIRC? Whereas Archer and PzH2000 are autoloaders. The latter 2 could be used very quickly against multiple targets. This could make quite a difference even in thise low numbers.
Looking at some of the Ukraines shelled landscape, i can see course corrected artillery shells as an absolutely needed as standard, even with high cost i can't imagine the effective cost to be more than the ammo spent otherwise.I understand that better manufacturing tolerances and ballistics computing can reduce the CEP but still when you are trying to hit into a trench you are hitting a target maybe 1m wide and
Recently taken Ukrainan positions,
Mr. T (MrT4) said:
i imagine that wheeled Cesar is far better suited to the Ukrainian situation.
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.
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