• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

C3 Howitzer Replacement

Does it matter if the MLRS is from SK, Israel or the US? Some overlap in the variety of hammers can be expected to be dropped. The 105's seem to be the most obvious as no one anywhere seems to know what to do with respct to their replacement

WRT the MLRS - national origin is immaterial to me.

I just like the Chunmoo because it carries two pods on wheels vs two on tracks or one on wheels. I also like that the South Koreans have taken what is, in my view, the next logical step and accept the "Pod" as the basic unit of supply. What that pod is loaded with is as immaterial and relevant as asking what is in an Arleigh Burke's VLS.

That same truck could be outfitted with the HIMARS/MLRS loadout, the NASAMs loadout, Harpoons or NSMs, LAMs or APKWS, or just lots of dumb 70mm rockets.

Maslow's hammer with a twist? How about Maslow's Impact Driver with a twist?

1690917854816.png 1690917914407.png
 
PS the Maslow Hammer's array missed my favourite.

1690918064209.png
You can't bash metal without a decent ballpeen hammer.
 
WRT the MLRS - national origin is immaterial to me.

I just like the Chunmoo because it carries two pods on wheels vs two on tracks or one on wheels. I also like that the South Koreans have taken what is, in my view, the next logical step and accept the "Pod" as the basic unit of supply. What that pod is loaded with is as immaterial and relevant as asking what is in an Arleigh Burke's VLS.

That same truck could be outfitted with the HIMARS/MLRS loadout, the NASAMs loadout, Harpoons or NSMs, LAMs or APKWS, or just lots of dumb 70mm rockets.

Maslow's hammer with a twist? How about Maslow's Impact Driver with a twist?

View attachment 79204 View attachment 79205

I think they can all be mounted two pods if you like. Assume less mobility?
 
Maslow's Hammer . . . with a twist.

View attachment 79202
You're missing one:
p_1000131861.jpg
 

I think they can all be mounted two pods if you like. Assume less mobility?

Nice to see the MAN solution as well. Didn't know about that one but...

1690924824253.png

1690924895024.png1690925177050.png1690924968469.png


Same truck gives you the MRLS GS system, the SkySabre MRAD system, the Land Precision Strike (Brimstone 3) system and the Archer 155mm system.

All identical deployability and mobility and all exploiting the range of their weapons.

MRLS - out to 500 km with the PrSM missiles and 150 km with GMRLS-ER and GLSDB
SkySabre - beyond 100 km with the CAMM-MR and beyond 45 km with the CAMM-ER
LPS - 130 km with the Spear 3 (big brother of Brimstone 2)
Archer - 70 km with Vulcano, 50 km with Excalibur

The Man HX77 8x8
Mass13,500 kg (chassis cab); 32,000 kg (laden); 44,000 kg (GCWR)[1]

It is too tall for a C130 but a couple of them, laden, would fit nicely in a C17.
 
Does the addition of a muzzle velocity sensor change the scatter?
No. It just tells you what the MV is and allows you to adjust for it. Same with met. PEs are dependent on many factors, some of which are attributable to the ammunition consistency and some on gun stability. It's basically a factor of internal ballistics and the directional stability that the barrel provides. I think that with a regular recoiling gun, you start with a stable gun that moves during recoil while a soft recoil gun has two movements; a forward movement before firing and then a recoil movement. In my mind that just leads to a less stable gun especially one lightened to work off a truck. I don't know this for a fact and would need to see the results of much test firing but I just think it has to be less consistent.

And if we accept that a 155 can do what a 60 can do, with overkill admittedly, then why wouldn't we get rid of the 60s, 81s and 120s as well as the 105s? Or my preferred course of action....

Spend all the Indirect Fire Budget on Chunmoos.

Cost and availability dictates having a variety of systems that are tailored and optimized for specific situations. Eggs ... baskets ....

🍻
 
They are also going to be making M777’s too.
Frankly I’d go that route than the 119.
Problem with M777 is crew requirements. 10 man gun dets is sub optimal. I agree that 155 is a better round, just the added logistics burden of the crew is what kills it for me. Speaking to some Brits L118 runs 6 per gun.
 
Problem with M777 is crew requirements. 10 man gun dets is sub optimal. I agree that 155 is a better round, just the added logistics burden of the crew is what kills it for me. Speaking to some Brits L118 runs 6 per gun.

BAE could also be making the Archer in Ukraine. 2 to 4 gunner det and 155.
 
Off set of course by the requirements for more in the reloading vehicle. But yes I massively prefer a self propelled system.

10 men on a gun....

2 on the gun
2 in the MRT
6 in the ammo trucks.
 
Problem with M777 is crew requirements. 10 man gun dets is sub optimal. I agree that 155 is a better round, just the added logistics burden of the crew is what kills it for me. Speaking to some Brits L118 runs 6 per gun.
I'm not going to do another long post about how the number of men working a gun is a study in false economies. The issue should always be terminal effects. What do you need happening at the receiving end of the round. Not how many people man the gun.

In short, the 155 offers much greater range, good accuracy and the ability to provide significant precision and area effects. Far superior to the 105mm round in all respects.

Add to that the fact that the people on the gun provide ammunition handling capabilities, security (including CUAV/AD dets), solid 24/7 operations and can be for the most part provided with semi-skilled labour (read cheap reservists). The number of folks on the gun line is only an issue for the political staff weinies who make artificial manpower ceilings on deployments.
BAE could also be making the Archer in Ukraine. 2 to 4 gunner det and 155.
How many times do I have to say that with a 21 round magazine the gun will be out of action more often than it is in action for bombing up and that there needs to be a whole herd of people behind the scenes to keep it loaded, secure the area and swap out crews to provide 24/7 operation.

Folks. There's a big difference between peace-time operations on the range and war. You can operate an M777 with four guys too - just not for long. It's kind of like saying that an infantry platoon only needs two folks - one to provide covering fire while the other moves.

I'm not a naysayer on the 105. It has its uses in airborne and airmobile ops where space and weight are an issue and range isn't. For a mech brigade, you need 155 and preferably an SP with the crew under armour. The M777 too has a role in such operations

And just to prove that I'm not an old M109 curmudgeon, I firmly believe we are missing the boat on not developing a serious capability of a variety of loitering precision munitions to supplement ATGMs and indirect fire. Judging by the low amount of fast air and attack helicopter employment in the front lines in Ukraine, our JTACs would be well utilized in attacking with cheap UCAVs, loitering munitions and the like.

🍻
 
I'm not going to do another long post about how the number of men working a gun is a study in false economies. The issue should always be terminal effects. What do you need happening at the receiving end of the round. Not how many people man the gun.

In short, the 155 offers much greater range, good accuracy and the ability to provide significant precision and area effects. Far superior to the 105mm round in all respects.

Add to that the fact that the people on the gun provide ammunition handling capabilities, security (including CUAV/AD dets), solid 24/7 operations and can be for the most part provided with semi-skilled labour (read cheap reservists). The number of folks on the gun line is only an issue for the political staff weinies who make artificial manpower ceilings on deployments.

How many times do I have to say that with a 21 round magazine the gun will be out of action more often than it is in action for bombing up and that there needs to be a whole herd of people behind the scenes to keep it loaded, secure the area and swap out crews to provide 24/7 operation.

Folks. There's a big difference between peace-time operations on the range and war. You can operate an M777 with four guys too - just not for long. It's kind of like saying that an infantry platoon only needs two folks - one to provide covering fire while the other moves.

I'm not a naysayer on the 105. It has its uses in airborne and airmobile ops where space and weight are an issue and range isn't. For a mech brigade, you need 155 and preferably an SP with the crew under armour. The M777 too has a role in such operations

And just to prove that I'm not an old M109 curmudgeon, I firmly believe we are missing the boat on not developing a serious capability of a variety of loitering precision munitions to supplement ATGMs and indirect fire. Judging by the low amount of fast air and attack helicopter employment in the front lines in Ukraine, our JTACs would be well utilized in attacking with cheap UCAVs, loitering munitions and the like.

🍻

Fine then. Have it your way.

10 men on the guns
2 on each of 2 guns
2 on the MRT
4 on the Ammo Trucks

There is just no pleasing some people. :D
 
Towed guns are of limited utility against a top tier enemy, regardless of the crew size or calibre.
Something the army decided to forget about in 2004/5 and ever since. Your buddy Dan Ross did squirrel away a regiment's worth for a rainy day for a few years until the army finally neutered them for monuments.

On the other hand its hard to sling load an M109 under a Chinook or drop it out of a Herc.

;)
 
Back
Top