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; 1170 views.
schnuersi

From: schnuersi

24-May

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.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

24-May

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.

In reply toRe: msg 7
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

24-May

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

graylion

From: graylion

24-May

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.

In reply toRe: msg 9
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

24-May

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, 

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.

TOP