Jump to content


Photo

Next Generation Ibct/sbct Howitzer

U.S. Army Artillery new howitzer

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#41 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,214 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 04 March 2018 - 1958 PM

The Italian pack howitzers used bushings instead of bearings in the wheels to save weight, which means you can't tow them very far, they not designed for the use they got in peactime.


  • 0

#42 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,122 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 04 March 2018 - 2217 PM

M777 is very tail wag dog. A 2% mission driving the other 98.  Do SBCTs have HEMTT or equivalents? What is the largest vehicle they already have? That is your base vehicle. 


  • 0

#43 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,210 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 05 March 2018 - 1625 PM

It's been done before: http://www.military-...m777_portee.htm


  • 0

#44 Olof Larsson

Olof Larsson

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 05 March 2018 - 1705 PM

M777 is very tail wag dog. A 2% mission driving the other 98.  Do SBCTs have HEMTT or equivalents? What is the largest vehicle they already have? That is your base vehicle. 

 

With the gun and a similar mounting to the Caesar, you could even put it on a smaller truck and possibly on a modified Stryker. The HEMTT would allow for more armour, munition and son on on board though. The AGM/Donar turret on MLRS chassis (for HBCT) and modified HEMTT or a modified Stryker (for SBCT/IBCT) might also be an option. Having the same basic turret for tracked and wheeled SPG's would not hurt.


  • 0

#45 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,214 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 05 March 2018 - 1954 PM

If logistical footprint is an issue, this is the way to go 

105test7.jpg


  • 0

#46 TOW-2

TOW-2

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 733 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 March 2018 - 2025 PM

Oh cool so another 30 year debate over a design to choose and then abandon once 8 or 9 prototypes have been built, and then some of the improvements from that project are slathered on to current systems as a stop gap alternative to doing any fucking thing in the way of acquiring new systems.  Cool cool.


  • 0

#47 FALightFighter

FALightFighter

    Red-Legged Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,398 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 06 March 2018 - 0719 AM

In my mind, the ability to rapidly displace is more important than long range. Something like the Samsung EVO-105 (www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/evo-105.htm) or the Mandus Group Hawkeye (www.mandusgroup.com/new.php?topic=details&ni=22) is what we need for light forces. Similar on a Stryker chassis for the SBCT. I think that technological advances will put precision into the 105mm package, and if you hit the target, the power requirement is much smaller.

 

As far as options, equipment is comparatively cheap compared to personnel. We already have the arms room concept in SBCT and IBCT mortars, why not in the field artillery, too? I'd give each SBCT field artillery battalion 18 crews, and 36 howitzers- 18 SP 155mm on a Stryker chassis, 12 M777, and 6 M119. In the IBCT, I'd make it 18 SP 105mm (similar to the equipment linked above) and 12 120mm mortars, and 6 light/towed 105mm. This provides the commander options regarding how he employs his unit.


  • 0

#48 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,443 posts

Posted 06 March 2018 - 0924 AM

120mm mortar has ECR that is closer to 155mm than 105mm, save for the 105mm PFF and others of enhanced performance.  Air transport of 155 arty is stupid IMO, since you're not going to be hauling the prime mover, so it's basically throwing it away if the enemy has any meaningful counterbattery.  

 

A 160mm mortar lofting a rocket boosted shell with a GPS guided fuze would be cool and fairly light, probably on the order of "pack howitzer" scale.  Much greater effect on target. When using "smart" shells, you want to maximize the explosive delivered per expensive guidance system expended, thus favoring larger calibers.  If you're just using dumb shells to suppress for time to facilitate maneuver, then small crap works fine.  105mm LEO or V2C2 would be smart there, and not too bad on the ECR front when using PFF ammo.

 

Mortar ammo is generally better transport, as lower volume/shell weight ratio.

 

I suggested a 127mm mid range arty piece some years back, using 155mm modular charges and the USN 127mm 70lb shell.  Capitalize on developed asserts.

 

But it seems that our procurement and development schmucks don't want an effective ground force, preferring basically worthless light infantry for policing the wogs.  There's a lot of deep thoughts to be thunk there, if you're feeling cynical.  S/F....Ken M    

Yeah that was my thinking, if you can bother doing a PGM or similar then put it on a 160mm or similar size shell. A 160/155 mm round can only be launched by rocket or mortar in something easily air portable.

Surely any mortar bomb is always going to have better theoretical effectiveness for the same caliber/type over howitzer/gun shells for anything other than making big fragments or APHE, as you don't need such a thick case and can cram in more highly optimised filling (even plain steel balls are going to be much better than fragmented shell case against infantry).


Edited by KV7, 06 March 2018 - 0926 AM.

  • 0

#49 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,122 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 06 March 2018 - 1017 AM

That is a FA wet dream!


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users