• 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

Not sure what you are worrying about here for terminology?

"Doctrine" wise we have the following from Land Operations:

Combat Elements - those that engage the enemy directly (armour, infantry, direct fire units). Considered ground manoeuvre units.

Combat Support Elements - fire support, operational assistance, and enablers to combat elements through designated command and control and fire support relationships. Cbt sp elements include fire support, air defence, reconnaissance, combat engineer, some electronic warfare elements, and some aviation assets.

Combat Arms - The term “combat arms” is a colloquial term that refers to a slightly wider description of “combat elements.” It includes armour, infantry, field engineers, and artillery.

So, for what its worth, artillery and engineers are already combat arms.
Okay. Got it. I had been under the mistaken impression that the term "combat arms" had doctrinally been replaced completely by "combat, combat support and combat service support elements."

I must admit that leaves me with two questions.

The first is: what is the purpose of having the term "elements" and retaining the term "arms" composed with different groups? Creating a colloquial term with a somewhat wider description of "combat elements" is just muddying the terminology which doctrine shouldn't do. We didn't used to subdivide "combat arms" into "combat elements" and "combat support elements". Someone obviously decided it was necessary to do so but I fail to see the purpose.

The second question goes back to the initial point which is that there are two broad categories of combat: manoeuvre supported by fires or fires supported by manoeuvre. The west generally favours the former and the east generally the latter. By classifying units into "combat elements" and "combat support" elements we are codifying the former and dismissing the latter. With a broad "combat arms" of four entities you create the possibility of wider options on how to fight. By defining "combat support elements" the way we do we automatically put them into an enabler category rather than the dominant category. It subliminally negates the idea of using fires to break the enemy so that the "combat elements" merely clean up the aftermath (and I don't say "merely" pejoratively here). Technically we are moving into an era when that is more possible with various precision indirect fire weapons without employing Soviet scale fires. Frankly defeating an enemy by fires and sparing assault forces from heavy combat should be a preferred tactic. That requires both teaching and practicing fires supported by manoeuvre tactics.

🍻
 
Okay. Got it. I had been under the mistaken impression that the term "combat arms" had doctrinally been replaced completely by "combat, combat support and combat service support elements."

I must admit that leaves me with two questions.

The first is: what is the purpose of having the term "elements" and retaining the term "arms" composed with different groups? Creating a colloquial term with a somewhat wider description of "combat elements" is just muddying the terminology which doctrine shouldn't do. We didn't used to subdivide "combat arms" into "combat elements" and "combat support elements". Someone obviously decided it was necessary to do so but I fail to see the purpose.

The second question goes back to the initial point which is that there are two broad categories of combat: manoeuvre supported by fires or fires supported by manoeuvre. The west generally favours the former and the east generally the latter. By classifying units into "combat elements" and "combat support" elements we are codifying the former and dismissing the latter. With a broad "combat arms" of four entities you create the possibility of wider options on how to fight. By defining "combat support elements" the way we do we automatically put them into an enabler category rather than the dominant category. It subliminally negates the idea of using fires to break the enemy so that the "combat elements" merely clean up the aftermath (and I don't say "merely" pejoratively here). Technically we are moving into an era when that is more possible with various precision indirect fire weapons without employing Soviet scale fires. Frankly defeating an enemy by fires and sparing assault forces from heavy combat should be a preferred tactic. That requires both teaching and practicing fires supported by manoeuvre tactics.

🍻
Land Ops is a bit over-stuffed, but I am not sure what is confusing about this part? Land Ops describes the basic force elements: combat elements, combat support elements, combat service support element and command support elements. Its a useful breakdown. It adds combat arms as a colloquial, perhaps, in an attempt to head-off people getting emotional about the term combat arms. Combat arms as a term matters for who goes on what junior leadership courses.

Like it or not, there is a difference between manoeuvre forces (combat elements) and combat support elements. Their capabilities and employment are different, and it is useful for the people who use doctrine to understand that.

On manoeuvre supported by fires or fires supported by manoeuvre, the word itself within NATO doctrine (and ours) is "Employment of forces on the battlefield through movement in combination with fire, or fire potential, to achieve a position of advantage in respect to the enemy in order to accomplish the mission." So its both fires and movement. The word has been attached to several concepts, especially in the 90s, and it can indeed be confusing. Its important to keep in mind, though, that manoeuvre includes fires. We do then use terms like manoeuvre forces to describe those in direct contact with the enemy, and that can be confusing.

I can recall an instructor on my US Army course for Captains that saying that "some move to shoot, other shoot to move." The 1998 US Army that I was training in had seven battlefield operating systems, with a distinction between manoeuvre (armor and infantry) and fire support. And yet they still managed to find a way to mass fires.

As a complete aside, I think that Western (French and British at least) tradition is firmly in the methodical battlefield approach born in the trenches of WW1 with the deliberate application of fire support driving operations. Sometimes it is the most appropriate way, but it is not the only way and it can be a trap in some situations. At the same time, the manoeuvrist approach can be a little hollow.

I don't think that the situation that the Canadian Army finds itself in with regards to capabilities has anything to do with the terms combat and combat support. It has to do with the perceived likelihood of "peer" combat before February 2022.
 
Well you could be like us now down here - and we now have "close combat forces"
It's being used as a determiner for who gets certain new gear (body armor, weapons etc.)
But it really just means Infantry Bn personnel, and seems to skip Bde staff's etc, there seems to have been a 100k number picked out (in advance?) of the determination of what CCF are - and so out of 1.1M US Army personnel, we have 100k CCF.
The Army may also have missed the whole 65k personnel in USASOC, as they need to provide for those personnel as well, but hey lets not let common sense get in the way of a good new name thrown out there right...
 
Further to discussions about autoloaders pros and cons.

The argument in favour of the single shot system seems to be flexibility of load. It is easy to mix and match effects in a single mission.
The argument in favour of the magazine is the speed into and out of action.
What happens if the magazine is held as a small magazine of 6 rounds that is pre-loaded for the fire mission.
Apparently six rounds is about all you can get off before having to move in any case. It would still allow for a Multi-Round Simultaneous Impact mission.
 
Further to discussions about autoloaders pros and cons.

The argument in favour of the single shot system seems to be flexibility of load. It is easy to mix and match effects in a single mission.
The argument in favour of the magazine is the speed into and out of action.
What happens if the magazine is held as a small magazine of 6 rounds that is pre-loaded for the fire mission.
Apparently six rounds is about all you can get off before having to move in any case. It would still allow for a Multi-Round Simultaneous Impact mission.
The more I see about how hard it is to keep mechanical equipment serviced, the more I think that there is nothing wrong with using a human loader. It's much simpler to replace a gun number than to fix a complex piece of machinery.

No. I'm not sure if I'm being sarcastic or realistic here.

🍻
 
The more I see about how hard it is to keep mechanical equipment serviced, the more I think that there is nothing wrong with using a human loader. It's much simpler to replace a gun number than to fix a complex piece of machinery.

No. I'm not sure if I'm being sarcastic or realistic here.

🍻

So you're now leaning towards the CAESAR 6x6?
 
Archer is both autoloader and armoured - because even guns have delicate bits and pieces that can get damaged by splinters. Caesar has SFA. It's a gun on a truck. Your better off with an M777 because you can at least lift it with a Chinook. The only thing that I like about Caesar is its 52 calibre barrel.

🍻
 
Archer is both autoloader and armoured - because even guns have delicate bits and pieces that can get damaged by splinters. Caesar has SFA. It's a gun on a truck. Your better off with an M777 because you can at least lift it with a Chinook. The only thing that I like about Caesar is its 52 calibre barrel.

🍻
Then can we interest you in a couple of these?
 
Then can we interest you in a couple of these?
:love: Yes you could - but in sets of 18 please.

🍻
 
The Russians seem to like the CAESAR. Or should that be the Tsar?
Except it uses a 120mm mortar.

1696987233905.png
 
Observations from the articles.

The Light Guns (M101s, L118s, L119s, M119s, M56s) are surviving better than the M777s. 1/166 lost vs more than 50/152. They have to stay on the move to stay in range. They are easier to move and easier to hide in new positions.

Wheels are surviving better than tracks. The Caesars have lost 2/50. The M109s and KRABs have lost 36/180. PzH2000 is doing well at 1/20.

Thoughts.

As the article notes the Light Gunners have to move to stay in range and their guns are relatively easy to move. Any pickup truck will get the job done and they can be man-handled easily.

Supposition here.... the M777, having longer range may let the gunners get comfortable and disinclined to move especially if having to move a heavy piece of kit that is both hard to get out of position and hard to get into a new position. (I am assuming soft ground here).

Another problem the article highlights is the ease of spotting guns in the open. Ruts and emplacements give them away. This seems to be also true of tracked howitzers.

Ruts from tracks in virgin fields are easily spotted. Kind of like this.

1699118358222.png

Conversely, CAESARS and Archers moving on highways and hardtop roads leave no trace getting into or out of position. And they can rapidly relocate. Couple that with the long range of their guns and they have many potential firing points within range of the enemy targets. They also have burst fire capability. 6 Rounds in 30 seconds for the Archer. The Caesar is about half of that, 6 rounds in a minute.




Russia Hits Immobile And Predictable M-777, AHS Krab, And M-109 Howitzers Hard​

Craig Hooper

May 14, 2023,10:15am EDT
Privacy Policy – Privacy & Terms – Google
To date, Ukraine has received at least 390 pieces of towed artillery and 440 self-propelled guns. NATO’s “big guns” have performed well in Ukrainian hands, but they are suffering heavy losses to Russian action. As imagery of successful attacks on Western gear accumulates, they suggest that Ukraine must keep their artillery pieces on the move, avoiding predictable patterns of operation.

Open-source data compiled by the indefatigable researchers behind the Oryx website suggest that Ukraine’s heaviest towed artillery— guns that cannot move themselves and are heavy enough to be an occasional mobility challenge—are getting hit. Ukraine’s loss rates are brutal. Of the approximately 152 big M777 155mm towed howitzers that “officially” arrived in Ukraine, over a third have already been damaged or destroyed.

Imagery of Russian strikes on the NATO-standard 155-mm howitzers show signs that the successfully targeted guns had become static battlefield assets—firing from positions heaped with piles of shells or blasting away from longstanding battlefield emplacements. Detritus around many of the hit guns suggest they had been firing from a single position long enough for Russia’s ponderous command-and-control apparatus to swing into action, ambushing Ukraine’s big guns.

But mobility isn’t the only answer. Russia is also hitting old-school self-propelled artillery systems—guns that can move about under their own power. Both the AHS Krab, a Polish-designed South Korean and British hybrid gun system, and America’s functional equivalent, the hard-working M-109 mobile howitzer, are getting hit rather hard, with loss rates ranging somewhere between eighteen to twenty-one percent. With over 180 delivered, at least 36 have been damaged or destroyed.

Again, imagery of successful Russian strikes suggests roughly half the destroyed mobile howitzers were caught in static firing points or had set into a pattern, operating from detectable positions.

In contrast, smaller and more mobile artillery platforms don’t seem to be getting hit much at all.

Smaller, More Mobile Platforms Are Staying Alive:​

While vulnerable, the small, easy-to-move M119 105mm guns seem to be staying alive

Thus far, at least 166 105mm towed artillery pieces have arrived in Ukraine. Of the array of British L118/119s, U.S.-built M101s and M119s, along with some OTO Melara Mod 56 105mm howitzers, open-source researchers have only confirmed damage to a single 105mm gun.

This lower loss rate may reflect the smaller platform’s relative mobility as well as their proximity to the front line.
The 105mm guns are, in general, no more than half the weight of a 155mm M777. While the 105mm shells are smaller and pack far less of a punch than the longer-ranged 155mm projectiles, the little guns operate close to the front line, where defenses and jammers may make life a little harder for Russia’s fleet of artillery-hunting drones. Changing tactical circumstances can also force the guns to move about the battlefield. Conversely, 105mm gun crews, operating 10 miles from their targets, know they can be targeted by a wide array of Russian ordnance, so they may be incentivized to reflexively shoot-and-scoot.

The French-built truck-mounted CAESAR 155mm gun has also done well in Ukraine. About 49 of these fast-moving, mobile guns are in Ukrainian service. And while the howitzers have been intensively used, they seem hard for Russia to catch. Open-source researchers have reported only two hits.

Again, crew staffing these relatively un-armored gun carriages are incentivized to shoot-and-scoot. And, unlike Ukraine’s tracked self-propelled artillery, the wheeled howitzer—while it may not be as “mobile” as a tracked vehicle—is far harder for Russian analysts to track down.

The German Panzerhaubitze (PzH) 2000 155mm self-propelled gun also seems to be avoiding harm. While the gun—the longest-range howitzer yet provided Ukraine—has suffered reliability problems and been forced to occasionally leave the battlefield for repairs, it has also been subject to high use-rates. Despite all the intensive use, only one of the 20 cannons has reportedly been damaged by Russian action. Again, this low loss rate may reflect the high-profile and specialized nature of the these platforms—making Ukraine focus on minimizing the risk to these hard-hitting, long-range platforms.

Mobility Is Life:​

Of course, open-source data is not the whole story. But the visual data available to date offers some compelling hints as to why Ukraine is losing some artillery platforms more than others.
Given Ukraine’s massive losses of heavy towed 155mm guns, future Ukraine aid should focus on ensuring Ukraine retains sufficient mobility assets and enough fresh gun crews to keep their precious 155mm howitzers moving around the battlefield. If open-source data reflects a real trend, understanding the difference in loss-rates between the smaller 105mm gun and the big howitzers is important. Foreign observers can help Ukraine identify operational vulnerabilities faster, steering operators away from highly-used ammunition, refueling and firing positions before Russia has an opportunity to capitalize on Ukraine’s mistakes.
With Ukraine challenged to hide tracked 155-mm self-propelled guns in the muddy Ukrainian fields, it might be worth comparing how the Ukraine army treats their fleet of workmanlike KRAB and M-109 guns versus how the Army operates their precious PzH-2000s.
The loss rates may also reflect the challenge of adopting to a NATO-standard arsenal. While KRABs, M-109s and M777 howitzers look a lot like their old-school, Soviet-era analogues, they are very different animals, and need to be operated in different ways. New habits may come easier to those operators who are forced to operate platforms that have no simple Russian analogue.
Mobility, of course, isn’t the only answer. Going forward, fancy technology and other efforts to block and jam Russia’s array of reconnaissance attack-drones will be critical. But the basics matter. The pattens seem clear: The more Ukraine’s high-value gear moves—and the more it moves in unpredictable patterns—the harder it is for Russia to hit them.

Archers are now in action with the Ukrainian arsenal.

 
Observations from the articles.

The Light Guns (M101s, L118s, L119s, M119s, M56s) are surviving better than the M777s. 1/166 lost vs more than 50/152. They have to stay on the move to stay in range. They are easier to move and easier to hide in new positions.

Wheels are surviving better than tracks. The Caesars have lost 2/50. The M109s and KRABs have lost 36/180. PzH2000 is doing well at 1/20.

Thoughts.

As the article notes the Light Gunners have to move to stay in range and their guns are relatively easy to move. Any pickup truck will get the job done and they can be man-handled easily.

Supposition here.... the M777, having longer range may let the gunners get comfortable and disinclined to move especially if having to move a heavy piece of kit that is both hard to get out of position and hard to get into a new position. (I am assuming soft ground here).

Another problem the article highlights is the ease of spotting guns in the open. Ruts and emplacements give them away. This seems to be also true of tracked howitzers.

Ruts from tracks in virgin fields are easily spotted. Kind of like this.

View attachment 81067

Conversely, CAESARS and Archers moving on highways and hardtop roads leave no trace getting into or out of position. And they can rapidly relocate. Couple that with the long range of their guns and they have many potential firing points within range of the enemy targets. They also have burst fire capability. 6 Rounds in 30 seconds for the Archer. The Caesar is about half of that, 6 rounds in a minute.






Archers are now in action with the Ukrainian arsenal.

is it controlled for usage and risk/exposure?
 
A lot of unknowns.
That's my take on it. It needs a lot more analysis of both the way that the Ukrainians use their varying gun systems and the way that Russians identify and prioritize their counter battery work. Saying tracked vehicles leave ... well tracks ... while Caesars are wheeled and don't is simplistic in the extreme. If Caesars and other guns move solely on highways then their AMAs are greatly reduced and a plan of flying reconnaissance along highways would quickly spot most of them even when not firing.

I do agree that I've seen far to many pictures of gun positions with salvage around them bearing witness to prolonged periods of firing. Conversely, a battery on the road also quickly draws attention to aerial surveillance. One big issue about staying in place v moving is what type of ammunition support vehicles, and how many, are organic to the battery. That's a major factor.

If I were to guess, and I do that all too often, then my money would be the importance of 155mm guns as the most viable targets and the ones that you would expend a Lancet on. 105mm simply aren't the same threat in the deep muck that is Ukrainian soil and their trench systems. They don't get paid the same level of attention.

Just as an aside, Oryx reports 5 Caesars as hit with three destroyed and two damaged. The statistic that I find interesting is that 37 M777s have been destroyed and another 34 damaged which reinforces the vulnerability of unarmoured guns to near misses. I haven't run a detailed calculation - I'll leave that to you - but my impression is that there is a higher ratio of destroyed SPs to damaged ones. To me that's indicative of near misses doing little damage to SPs but a direct hit - like with a Lancet - is catastrophic. An interesting statistic that one doesn't get from Oryx, is the rate of personnel casualties amongst armoured v unarmoured guns.

Just a reminder - I have nothing against wheeled guns - my problem is with unarmoured guns which is what the Caesar is.

🍻
 
Back
Top