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; 1156 views.
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.

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.

TOP