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

Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

AmmoTech90 said:
They are nowhere held right now as they are a potentiality on paper.
Thinking like this is why we have 3 symmetrical brigade with low manning.
Click to expand...
The thinking is tactics lol. The infantry need mortars and the range on them isn't that useful for the arty. I'd rather my gunners on guns and rockets, leave the mortars to the maneouvre units who are better served by them.
 
Underway said:
That's good you are looking at artillery brigade org. That's where we are officially headed from the scuttlebut I've heard. If we are going to a fighting division construct it makes complete sense.
Click to expand...
Me too. I think it makes sense even if we aren't going to a fighting division (and I think we should). There are additional reasons why grouping all gunners (including reserve regiments) into one brigade.
Underway said:
I don't know what half the symbols on there actually (sneeking looks wiki for assistance) are but I'm going to say that you're going to need heavy integral UAV assets. Also there needs to be the 120mm mortar LAV's in that org chart. (81mm will be with the infantry Battalions).
Click to expand...
Some are made up to show specific arty taskings. (I'll make a small legend later tonight)

UAVs and loitering munitions are in the battery on the right of the three SP gun batteries. It also contains radars and other sensors. I see 120mm mortars exclusively with the infantry (even if attached to or integral to cavalry units) Mortars with artillery was a very specialized function (such as in the old Airborne Battery) until the big clusterf**k of the turn of the century AwP reorgs. Its time to realign all that. I know there are armies that think differently (including folks in ours) but I'm a strong proponent of 120s with the mech inf battalions. Bn COs need guaranteed fire support - and believe it or not but CS arty in direct support to a battalion can still be taken away at priority call to some one else. The range of a 120 is appropriate for a mech bn on the move while an 81 is somewhat limited.
Underway said:
Ukrainian experience shows that artillery and drones working on concert are devestating. Not only do drones do the spotting but they get the mobility kill on the vehicle while the artillery takes out the dismounts. Or artillery suppress air defence troops while drones attack a high value target. Putting these two together into the same Brigade only makes sense to me.

I'm not sure where loitering munitions would go.
Click to expand...
I see loitering munitions at all levels within the brigade (and division) in layers from the rifle company on up. While companies and battalions generally use them within their own AOs, the arty ones will go further into depth and also allow concentrations of additional resources at critical points anywhere in the bde area.

🍻
 
Underway said:
You could organize the 120mm like that if you wanted but I'm going to step outside the "mortars are automatically infantry weapons" paradigm for a second here. I think that they should be Mech Brigade assets (attached from the Artillery Regiment) and directed as necessary down to units that need them or held at that level. 81mm will be the infantry mortars integrated into the Battalions. This means that the Mech Brigades fight the enemy out to 8km directly (120mm range). The artillery Brigades do the fighting out to 30km. The Divisional fight includes HIMARS.
Click to expand...
Is their a role for something like this , perhaps at the Battalion level?
H12_Type_63_multiple_rocket_launcher.JPG
 
PrairieFella said:
The thinking is tactics lol. The infantry need mortars and the range on them isn't that useful for the arty. I'd rather my gunners on guns and rockets, leave the mortars to the maneouvre units who are better served by them.
Click to expand...
13km range on 120mm mortars...how is that capability useful to Canadian infantry battalion. 2.5x what an 81 gives.



Lol (for extra credibility apparently)
 
AmmoTech90 said:
13km range on 120mm mortars...how is that capability useful to Canadian infantry battalion. 2.5x what an 81 gives.



Lol (for extra credibility apparently)
Click to expand...
I need it. I'm more comfortable with things that float on water (though the NEMO 120mm is designed to go on boats).

I think the 120mm fits into the area where the 105mm gun used to fit. But its got more explosive power and far more mobility (when mounted on a vehicle). I really think Mech Brigade asset attached from the Arty Rgt is their proper spot. Then can swing where needed for the Cav or infantry fight.
 
Turreted mortars for units with vehicles - Eg 14x 120mm tanks + 4x 120mm NEMOs in a squadron.

If the 120mm mortar can be safely fired from a baseplate then you could add the 120 to the infantry battalions or leave them with the 81s and recreate the Machine Gun Battalions


Machine Gun Battalion​

A Machine Gun Battalion was a type of Infantry Battalion created to provide infantry (rifle) battalions with fire support, primarily from Machine Guns.
​

Machine Gun Battalions​

...the establishment was changed ... to a four company Machine Gun Battalion; three companies of machineguns and one company of mortars, each with four platoons. The anti-aircraft elements were disbanded, and the old designation of Toronto Scottish Regiment (MG) was resumed. A full slate of T-16 carriers was issued for the mortar crews and Universal Carriers for the machinegun platoons, with special mountings for the Vickers Guns.​
The establishment did not change again for the rest of the war. It called for a total of 36 officers and 711 Other Ranks.
  • Battalion Headquarters
    • Headquarters Company
      • Light Aid Detachment, RCEME (attached)
      • Signals Platoon
    • Medium Machine Gun Company
      • Machine Gun Platoon - 4 x Vickers Gun
      • Machine Gun Platoon
      • Machine Gun Platoon
    • Medium Machine Gun Company
      • (as above)
    • Medium Machine Gun Company
      • (as above)
    • Mortar Company
      • Mortar Platoon - 4 x 4.2" Mortar
      • Mortar Platoon (as above)
      • Mortar Platoon (as above)
      • Mortar Platoon (as above)


Swap the 4.2 for the 120 and the Vickers for a 30x113mm Bushmaster.
 
This is a one hour + briefing by the Commanding Officer of the Latvia Multinational Artillery Battalion Group for Roto 2-24 to the RCAA. The briefing is quite detailed on both the MN Bde structure and particulalry in depth on the Arty Bn Gp. It's a little dry for the first few minutes, then gets into a detailed PowerPoint followed by question period by various gunners from the RCAA.


🍻
 
Fabius said:
GMARS vs HIMARS
2 Pods vs 1
Lockheed increasing ability to manufacture their systems via European manufacturing lines?

GMARS – Global Mobile Artillery Rocket System

Rheinmetall and Lockheed Martin developed GMARS as a solution for the growing demand for long-range rocket artillery.
www.rheinmetall.com www.rheinmetall.com
Click to expand...
Germany has had a version of the two-pod tracked MLRS called the MARS and MARS II for some time. GMARS converts that to wheeled and my understanding is that GMARS will replace MARS II.

The one issue may be its height. Based on the specs, it is higher than the HIMARS and it looks like it wouldn't fit into a C1-130J Hercules for transport. I haven't found any actual info on that but do note that air transportability is not in their ads. That wouldn't be a big issue for Germany as a) they don't look like needing to strategically move a GMARS, and b) if they did, the A 400 would do the job. OTOH the US or Canada would need to use a C-17 (albeit even that seems tight based on published specs)

🍻
 
FJAG said:
Germany has had a version of the two-pod tracked MLRS called the MARS and MARS II for some time. GMARS converts that to wheeled and my understanding is that GMARS will replace MARS II.

The one issue may be its height. Based on the specs, it is higher than the HIMARS and it looks like it wouldn't fit into a C1-130J Hercules for transport. I haven't found any actual info on that but do note that air transportability is not in their ads. That wouldn't be a big issue for Germany as a) they don't look like needing to strategically move a GMARS, and b) if they did, the A 400 would do the job. OTOH the US or Canada would need to use a C-17 (albeit even that seems tight based on published specs)

🍻
Click to expand...
Are those fork pockets on the frame under the turret? Would lifting that off gain enough headroom, or is the Hercules cutoff height somewhere much lower?
 
FJAG said:
Germany has had a version of the two-pod tracked MLRS called the MARS and MARS II for some time. GMARS converts that to wheeled and my understanding is that GMARS will replace MARS II.

The one issue may be its height. Based on the specs, it is higher than the HIMARS and it looks like it wouldn't fit into a C1-130J Hercules for transport. I haven't found any actual info on that but do note that air transportability is not in their ads. That wouldn't be a big issue for Germany as a) they don't look like needing to strategically move a GMARS, and b) if they did, the A 400 would do the job. OTOH the US or Canada would need to use a C-17 (albeit even that seems tight based on published specs)

🍻
Click to expand...
So, if we're seriously looking for strategic independence from the US do we need to look at a fleet of A400M's?
 
quadrapiper said:
Are those fork pockets on the frame under the turret? Would lifting that off gain enough headroom, or is the Hercules cutoff height somewhere much lower?
Click to expand...
I'm just going of Wikipedia specs.

The GMARS is set at 3.8m high, HIMARS at 3.2m and the C-130 cargo minimum height at 2.74m.

That may at first appear contradictory but we know it can be done without deflating the tires because its been done and here's a video. It's been done many times using a variety of HIMARS including Marines and ARNG and C-130Js from different services and countries. I think that's because the minimum height is at the centre of the aircraft where the wings are but there is more space at the rear of the cargo compartment where the cab (the highest part on the HIMARS) goes.

When you look at the GMARS, the highest part is the launcher which extends from just before the middle to the rear of the vehicle.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fork pockets"

 
FJAG said:
Got it. No idea.

🍻
Click to expand...

I would read it this way.

1. The Truck and the Launcher are separate

this continues a trend noted with the Boxer (which loads modules on to a common drive train) and NASAMs, Coastal Defence and Skynex

1743694554011.png1743694657876.png1743694763227.png
1743694835160.png
1743694927263.png1743695009662.png

2. That suggests

A. That the truck employed is immaterial
B. That the truck and the "pallet" can be shipped independently
C. That the weapons can be launched/fired off the back of the truck
D. That the weapons can be dismounted and emplaced
E. That the weapons can be mounted on board a ship.

3. That further suggest that the key element in the design is the T&E gear (Traverse and Elevation) and that a common palletized T&E solution could load just about any missile assuming that the missile pod was compatible.

Any PLS truck could transport the T&E Pallet.
Any T&E pallet could load any pod with any missiles from the MLRS Family, potentially the NSM/JSM missiles, new 122 mm rockets with M1156 precision guidance kits, new cruise missiles, loitering munitions, Brimstone and NASAMs pods for Sidewinder, AIM-120 ER and ESSMs.

And that the systems could be tri-service systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top