Jump to content


Photo

Artillery-Delivered Cluster Munitions


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,252 posts

Posted 17 June 2017 - 1921 PM

Seems the US is still looking at improved/more reliable systems. Presumably NATO doesn't employ these any more?

 

http://www.dtic.mil/...8578_Gorman.pdf


  • 0

#2 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 17 June 2017 - 1954 PM

As of 2015 it seemed they did not plan to replace it:

http://defense-and-f...-what-this.html


  • 0

#3 17thfabn

17thfabn

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:World War II history. Crime and action novels

Posted 17 June 2017 - 2055 PM

Prior US administration signed of on the agreement banning some multiple projectile warheads. New administration is not bound by it. They may have decided to go on with stockpiling the old style DPICM artillery projectiles. At the same time upgrading the old fuses.
  • 0

#4 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,252 posts

Posted 17 June 2017 - 2156 PM

I don't think the US military was ever that keen on giving up cluster munitions.


  • 0

#5 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,072 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 18 June 2017 - 0406 AM

That was a very interesting document.

 

The US mil already came up with an "Enhanced" warhead for GMLRS to provide non HEAT area effects. This is in service.

 

I was surprised that DPICM submunitions are no longer required to destroy/disable heavy armour as engine deck hits would certainly have done so in the past.

 

I am also suprised that the US is not fielding a SmArt/BONUS analog and putting those munitions in a guided GMLRS rocket (there was/is a European project to do this).

 

There has been/is a huge programme to demil 155mm cargo projectiles or, to a lesser extent, turn them into training (poorly fragmenting) HE or IR or light illumination rounds.


  • 0

#6 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 18 June 2017 - 0645 AM

DPICM without anti-tank function = ICM

 

Old HE shells (the ones with no good control of fragmentation and thus some really big fragments) are probably good enough against armor:

http://defense-and-f...ounds-cant.html


  • 0

#7 CaptLuke

CaptLuke

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco, CA, USA

Posted 18 June 2017 - 1919 PM

The US mil already came up with an "Enhanced" warhead for GMLRS to provide non HEAT area effects. This is in service.

 

I was surprised that DPICM submunitions are no longer required to destroy/disable heavy armour as engine deck hits would certainly have done so in the past.

 

I believe there was the original "enhanced" round, with a unitary warhead, where "enhanced" actually referred to enhanced anti-jam and accuracy capabilities.  This had the classic airburst, point detonation, and delay settings, but I don't know that there was anything special about the warhead itself.

 

In 2015 the "alternative" warhead went into production, using pre-formed fragments (PFF) made of tungsten (most sources say 160,000, but the fact sheet here says 182,000).  PFF are great for lethality, but can't get around a basic tradeoff: optimizing for attacking armor means fewer, heavier fragments and therefore reduced lethality against unarmored targets (and vice versa if you optimize the other way).

 

Significantly, the target set listed for the alternative warhead in that fact sheet does not include armored vehicles, which is not to say that it has no capability against them (see below), so I'm guessing that the PFF are optimized for airburst against personnel and unarmored targets.

 

An anti-armor optimized round would look more like the French PRAB, for 120mm mortars, that is marketed specifically as an anti-armor round.  Even with this optimization, the quoted performance is penetrating 8-15 mm of armor at the distance of 5-10m from the center of the explosion.

 

 

Old HE shells (the ones with no good control of fragmentation and thus some really big fragments) are probably good enough against armor:

http://defense-and-f...ounds-cant.html

 

They are certainly "Good enough" in the sense that a close by burst can penetrate lightly armored vehicles and do considerable damage to vision blocks, gun tubes, etc. on heavier vehicles.  The problem is landing rounds close enough.  This is a lot easier with modern fire control, but can still consume a lot of ammunition and be especially difficult against moving vehicles.  I believe that DPICMs big virtue was greater coverage area vs. a unitary warhead, so much greater lethality for a given number of rounds.

 

BTW: in addition to the old Aberdeen Proving Ground study, linked to from your link, the original article "Who Says Dumb Artillery Rounds Can’t Kill Armor?" is still online.


  • 0

#8 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,496 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 18 June 2017 - 2245 PM

Two types, DPICM and artillery delivered mines. The old problem with blinds and duds is just that. Modern fuzing is so much more reliable. But if you really want to kill armor, SADARM type munitions delivered en masse by rockets is the way to go.


  • 0

#9 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,196 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 19 June 2017 - 1158 AM

SADARM is probably superior anyway against armor, though I feel that there's definitely a loss of capability against soft targets using unitary rounds. I feel like making a CBU that has some kind of safety mechanism upon failed fusing shouldn't be technically challenging. Does the USAF/USN/USMC still purchase CBU-87 family weapons? Also have the remotely scatterable mines been completely retired? To me that doesn't make sense - they self clear at a set time, and even if they don't self clear properly, when the battery dies in couple weeks the mine is inert.
  • 0

#10 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,252 posts

Posted 21 June 2017 - 1900 PM

CBU-87/-103 hasn't been procured for some time now, and many are marked for disposal (IIRC).


  • 0

#11 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,072 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 25 June 2017 - 1745 PM

This contract for demil of CBU-87 and 103 went out three years ago.

 

https://govtribe.com...d/w564kv15h0016

 

The number in inventory thirteen years ago was pretty mind boggling.

 

https://books.google...ization&f=false


  • 0

#12 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 25 June 2017 - 1817 PM

784k shells of type M864 155 mm DPICM-BB

3,337k shells of type M483/M483A1 DPICM

Let's see how much that is:

 

200 rounds expended per day and SPG is a reasonable assumption in conventional warfare.

600 M109A3 SPGs were in West Germany (active service) by the end of the Cold War.

That's 120,000 shells consumed per day, by a fraction of overall U.S. Army SPG firepower.

 

That's 34 days worth of DPICM munitions if only DPICM was fired (more realistic: 2/3 DPICM - then it's 51 days worth of munitions) and all shells in the inventory were available to a force of 600 SPGs with zero attrition rate.


  • 0

#13 FALightFighter

FALightFighter

    Red-Legged Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 25 June 2017 - 2121 PM

Where did you get 200 rounds/day from?

 

Where did you get 600 M109A3 from? If you're talking only US, that's too many, if you're talking NATO, its way too few.

 

In 1989, I count 14 US brigades + 2 ACRs x 24 howitzers each = 384. There were some 155 units in the corps artilleries, but I only see 5 battalions there, 1 per FA brigade (2-15 FA in 41st FA BDE and 5-3 FA in 42nd FA BDE in V Corps; 5-17 FA in 17th FA BDE, 6-5 FA in 72nd FA BDE, and 3-17 FA in 210th FA BDE in VII Corps)


  • 0

#14 17thfabn

17thfabn

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:World War II history. Crime and action novels

Posted 25 June 2017 - 2218 PM

SADARM is probably superior anyway against armor, though I feel that there's definitely a loss of capability against soft targets using unitary rounds. I feel like making a CBU that has some kind of safety mechanism upon failed fusing shouldn't be technically challenging. Does the USAF/USN/USMC still purchase CBU-87 family weapons? Also have the remotely scatterable mines been completely retired? To me that doesn't make sense - they self clear at a set time, and even if they don't self clear properly, when the battery dies in couple weeks the mine is inert.

SADARM is probably superior anyway against armor, though I feel that there's definitely a loss of capability against soft targets using unitary rounds. I feel like making a CBU that has some kind of safety mechanism upon failed fusing shouldn't be technically challenging. Does the USAF/USN/USMC still purchase CBU-87 family weapons? Also have the remotely scatterable mines been completely retired? To me that doesn't make sense - they self clear at a set time, and even if they don't self clear properly, when the battery dies in couple weeks the mine is inert.


SADARM may be superior. However I would guess the old DPICM and field Artillery scatterable mines were simpler and less expensive.
  • 0

#15 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 26 June 2017 - 0141 AM

Where did you get 200 rounds/day from?

 

Where did you get 600 M109A3 from? If you're talking only US, that's too many, if you're talking NATO, its way too few.

 

In 1989, I count 14 US brigades + 2 ACRs x 24 howitzers each = 384. There were some 155 units in the corps artilleries, but I only see 5 battalions there, 1 per FA brigade (2-15 FA in 41st FA BDE and 5-3 FA in 42nd FA BDE in V Corps; 5-17 FA in 17th FA BDE, 6-5 FA in 72nd FA BDE, and 3-17 FA in 210th FA BDE in VII Corps)

 

V Corps CORPSARTY

2x24

 

3rd Armor DIVARTY

3x24

 

4th ID DIVARTY

3x24

 

8th ID DIVARTY

3x24

 

194th

1x24

 

197th

1x24

 

11th ACR

3x8 (=1x24)

 

VII Corps CORPSARTY

3x24

 

1st Armor

3x24

 

1st ID

3x24

 

3rd ID

3x24

 

2nd ACR

3x8  (=1x24)

 

I did not count III Corps.

 

 

27x24=648

Kinda close enough. Let's use technical readiness as an excuse for rounding down.

 

 

200 rounds per day was and probably still is a widespread assumption for conventional warfare in Europe, a rule of thumb. This may go up to 450 on a day or so.


  • 0

#16 FALightFighter

FALightFighter

    Red-Legged Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 26 June 2017 - 0519 AM

4th ID, 194th, 197th, and 2 brigades of 1st ID were not in Europe. There's no more reason to count those units than there is to count III Corps. And 3/2 AD (or 2AD(FWD)) was in Germany, even though a III Corps units.

 

The 14 US brigades were from 1st ID (1), 1st AD (3), 2nd AD (1), 3rd ID (3), 3rd AD (3), and 8th ID (3), plus the two ACRs (2nd and 11th).

 

Do you have a reference for 200 rounds/day (or for 450?). I've been an artilleryman for 20 years, and never heard or seen that figure. We break out the logistics planning factor (called required supply rates) by different types of activities (covering force, attack, defense), and intensity (light, moderate, heavy) as well as divisional or non-divisional and day of the operation (first day, days 2-5, and 6-15). This is covered in the 1987 FM 101-10-1, part 2, available digitally http://cgsc.cdmhost....3coll11/id/1139. The ranges across those variables are 51-333. I don't see any way to come up with a simplistic 200/day estimate.


  • 0

#17 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 26 June 2017 - 1115 AM

I read that 200 rounds per day required supply rate estimate more often from logistics sources than from arty sources.

It's obviously not specific to deliberate attack/hasty attack/deliberate defence/hasty defence/meeting engagement/pursuit etc. - it's a general figure, meant to represent an average over weeks of campaigning.

Now obviously I chose a "simplistic" single figure because I wasn't motivated enough to do the calculations for several figures.

 

The 450 figure was a reported maximum day in the Ukraine conflict, from that widely distributed Karber report.


  • 0

#18 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,072 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 26 June 2017 - 1141 AM

It's still mind boggling to me :)


  • 0

#19 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 26 June 2017 - 1217 PM

It's still mind boggling to me :)

 

Mind boggling is that arty ammunition and diesel fuel make up almost all supply demands of a division or brigade. There's very little else that gets consumed in conventional warfare.

And the AFVs are NOT the real fuel guzzlers. It's the lorries that move much more.

 

 

 

"The most telling characterization of fuel usage came from the Marine Corps 2003 Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) Study. This study showed that almost 90 percent of the fuel used by MEF ground vehicles would accrue to tactical wheeled vehicles (TWVs), including HMMWVs, 7-ton trucks, and the logistics vehicle system. Moreover, the study showed conclusively that combat vehicles (e.g., M1A1 tanks, light armored vehicles, and assault amphibious vehicles), although fuel guzzlers individually, as a fleet consume a relatively minor fraction of the fuel."

 

http://defense-and-f...er-of-fuel.html

 

http://defense-and-f...logistical.html


Edited by lastdingo, 26 June 2017 - 1218 PM.

  • 0

#20 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,506 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 26 June 2017 - 1919 PM

4th ID, 194th, 197th, and 2 brigades of 1st ID were not in Europe. There's no more reason to count those units than there is to count III Corps. And 3/2 AD (or 2AD(FWD)) was in Germany, even though a III Corps units.

 

The 14 US brigades were from 1st ID (1), 1st AD (3), 2nd AD (1), 3rd ID (3), 3rd AD (3), and 8th ID (3), plus the two ACRs (2nd and 11th).

 

Do you have a reference for 200 rounds/day (or for 450?). I've been an artilleryman for 20 years, and never heard or seen that figure. We break out the logistics planning factor (called required supply rates) by different types of activities (covering force, attack, defense), and intensity (light, moderate, heavy) as well as divisional or non-divisional and day of the operation (first day, days 2-5, and 6-15). This is covered in the 1987 FM 101-10-1, part 2, available digitally http://cgsc.cdmhost....3coll11/id/1139. The ranges across those variables are 51-333. I don't see any way to come up with a simplistic 200/day estimate.

Depends on what year, 4th ID had a brigade at Weisbaden until 1984.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users