• 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

Here is a very interesting piece about the US and large gun tube manufacturing. For those saying we should do that here....have a read.


I did not realize the US army had just one tube manufacturing site. 143 acres and they make just a few hundred a year. Yes the navy has one too.

Plus back many pages ago I put some numbers about setting manufacturing here I was wrong by factor of 10.
Watervliet has had several upgrades over the past decade - three years ago they had a huge amount of excess capacity that they where trying to find work for, as they had over 300% production capacity over demand.
 
Long Range Hypersonic Weapons
SM6s (which the Navy will probably want to fill its VLS silos)
Tomahawks
Precision Strike Missiles
ATACMs
GLSDBs
GMRLS-ERs
Extended Range Cannon Artillery
Paladins

And M777s

A plea for the US Army to get off the pot and make a decision on a truck mounted Cannon pointing to the success of the CESARs in Ukraine and the adoption of the Swedish Archer by BAE.


Right now the US Army is still trying to think if it is going to retain the Stryker Bde's in the long term. Since the invasion of Ukraine, there has been a desire to create more Heavy Divisions, so I don't think that any decision for a wheeled SPA is going to come before the Army decides on the fate of the "Medium" Forces -- for the Light Units, the idea of a wheeled SPA is a little moronic as the entire idea of Light Forces are they go into terrain that isn't suited for conventional vehicles, or are delivered by Airborne or Airmobile means.
 
Hey anyone have insight to this from the Defense News piece I post above?

"Already the Pentagon has taken steps to ramp up production of other key weapons systems. For instance, when it comes to 155m shells, the military is expanding from one government-owned, contractor-operated facility in Scranton, Pennsylvania, to two more locations: One based on a partnership with a Canadian company; the other, a General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems-run factory in Garland, Texas."

What Canadian Company is that? Is it that Company talking about building a plant in Ukraine before the invasion. The CCC and Former Gen Leslie were involved. Did they have the equipment already and could not put in Ukraine now?




Just before the invasion.
 
Right now the US Army is still trying to think if it is going to retain the Stryker Bde's in the long term. Since the invasion of Ukraine, there has been a desire to create more Heavy Divisions, so I don't think that any decision for a wheeled SPA is going to come before the Army decides on the fate of the "Medium" Forces -- for the Light Units, the idea of a wheeled SPA is a little moronic as the entire idea of Light Forces are they go into terrain that isn't suited for conventional vehicles, or are delivered by Airborne or Airmobile means.

Meanwhile, the 'light' 82nd Airborne now has armour...

The U.S. Army Is Getting Its First Light Tanks in More Than 50 Years​

Technically, Mobile Protected Firepower is not a tank, the service says. But it sure looks and acts like one.

 
Right now the US Army is still trying to think if it is going to retain the Stryker Bde's in the long term. Since the invasion of Ukraine, there has been a desire to create more Heavy Divisions, so I don't think that any decision for a wheeled SPA is going to come before the Army decides on the fate of the "Medium" Forces -- for the Light Units, the idea of a wheeled SPA is a little moronic as the entire idea of Light Forces are they go into terrain that isn't suited for conventional vehicles, or are delivered by Airborne or Airmobile means.
Do they want to fight a war or just fight a battle?

Ask the Ukrainians if they need wheels as well as tracks.
 
If the Ukrainians could get a100% Bradley force for their Mech Inf they’d be tickled pink.

I'm sure they would. I like free stuff too.

Redirect, M'lud?

Even if they could afford it would they want all their infantry to be mechanized? And is mechanized infantry the same as armoured infantry?
The Ukrainians have got from Day Zero to Day 500 without the Bradleys.
Conversely the Russians have gone from Day Three to Day 500 starting with a Bradley-Equivalent advantage.

And we can debate tactics and strategies until the cows come home.

Bradleys/CV90s/Marders/BMPs all provide advantage over troops that don't have them in some situations. But in the ongoing game of Rock Paper Scissors they can be countered.

How many Armoured Brigades or Divisions does it take to cover 1200 km of Front? Doctrinally speaking. And, in addition to that how much of a Reaction force do you need react to enemy breakthroughs and how much of a Strike force do you need to conduct your own breakthroughs?

1689169184336.png

1989 Border -7000 km long but the key border was the key stretch was the 2200 km of the Inner German Border and the German - Czech border (1400 + 800 respectively)

1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty

The principal features of the original CFE Treaty are:

Treaty Limited Equipment (TLE): NATO and the former Warsaw Pact were each limited to 20,000 tanks, 30,000 ACVs, 20,000 heavy artillery pieces, 6,800 combat aircraft, and 2,000 attack helicopters for the treaty's area of application. Member states of each alliance then divided their respective "bloc" limit among themselves, in effect creating national limits. (The Soviet Union's limits were subsequently parceled out among eight of its successor states in 1992.) To prevent any country from amassing a significant asymmetrical stockpile of weapons, the treaty prohibits a single state from possessing more than a third of the TLE total.

As of January 2007, NATO's 22 CFE states-parties claimed collective holdings of 61,281 TLE versus a cumulative limit of 101,697. Russia reported holdings of 23,266 TLE against limits of 28,216. Russia has not provided detailed reports to CFE since 2007. From 1992 through 2008, CFE states reduced more than 52,000 pieces of conventional armaments under the treaty. Many states reduced their holdings more than required – with over 17,955 voluntary reductions or conversions below treaty limits. States also carried out some 6,000 CFE inspections through 2008.

Tank and ACV inventories are now measured in their hundreds. And where thousands exist, as in Russian fields or Dutch and American warehouses, the vast majority were built prior to 1989 to hold that wall. They are over 30 years old. Sometimes 50 years old.

And creating those vast fields of steel Bankrupted the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. And stunted the economic development of the West collectively.

So, again, are all infantry to be mechanized infantry?
 
In 1991 there were approximately 4,200 tanks, 8,200 armored vehicles, 3,600 artillery pieces, 106,000 other motor vehicles, 690 aircraft, 680 helicopters, and 180 rocket systems.[8]

See also
Main article: List of Soviet military sites in Germany
At the end of the 1980s, the primary Soviet formations included:[9]

Other Group-level formations included:


In addition the East German Army contributed

  • The Landstreitkräfte(Ground Forces) with an active strength of 108,000 in the following divisions:
    • 1st Motor Rifle Division (Potsdam-Eiche)
    • 4th Motor Rifle Division (Erfurt)
    • 6th Motor Rifle Division (Königswartha)
    • 7th Panzer Division (Dresden)
    • 8th Motor Rifle Division (Schwerin)
    • 9th Panzer Division (Eggesin)
    • 10th Motor Rifle Division (Ronneburg)
    • 11th Motor Rifle Division (Halle)
    • 17th Motor Rifle Division (Petersroda)
    • 19th Motor Rifle Division (Wulkow)
    • 20th Motor Rifle Division (Bredenfelde)

Those are the troops allocated to hold the 1400 km Inner German Border which is similar in scale to the 1200 km regularly cited as the current Ukrainian front line.

On the other side

By the time the Cold War ended, some 900,000 troops—nearly half of them from six countries (United States, United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands)—were stationed in West Germany.
From Britannica for a change

NorthAG and CentAG


That was then this is now.

Those forces were born in the factories of WW2 and built up over a period of 50 years or more. It has been 34 years since the draw down started and those foreigners on German soil all went home.

Rebuilding the Inner German Border on the Russo-Ukrainian Border is going to take time. And the end product is not going to look like a 1989 solution much less a 1945 solution.
 
Here is a very interesting piece about the US and large gun tube manufacturing. For those saying we should do that here....have a read.


I did not realize the US army had just one tube manufacturing site. 143 acres and they make just a few hundred a year. Yes the navy has one too.

Plus back many pages ago I put some numbers about setting manufacturing here I was wrong by factor of 10.
Canada does not have to compete directly with them. But we can build our own arsenal plant, start with a new facility with expansion capacity in regards to land. Have it as a Crown Corporation that's allowed to take Canadian and foreign orders that do not interfere with domestic needs Take a look at what are long terms needs will be:

Small arms (rifles and machine guns)
Grenade launchers and mortars
25-35mm guns for the LAV's
Ammunition for the above, even if it's just the casings made at this plant

Get the above sorted out. Then look at the bigger stuff like parts for the 57mm/127mm guns for the navy. Missile components, RWS mounts. AA guns and mounts. Then look at the market and see what is not being produced, but we need. Slowly build up a larger capability that can be multi-tasked for all of the above.
 
But we can build our own arsenal plant
bender-futurama.gif
 
I'm sure they would. I like free stuff too.

Redirect, M'lud?

Even if they could afford it would they want all their infantry to be mechanized? And is mechanized infantry the same as armoured infantry?
The Ukrainians have got from Day Zero to Day 500 without the Bradleys.
Conversely the Russians have gone from Day Three to Day 500 starting with a Bradley-Equivalent advantage.
The BMP’s aren’t even close, other than in theory.
Crew survivability, and ease of maintenance are on opposite ends of the spectrum on those platforms with the Bradley winning by miles.

And we can debate tactics and strategies until the cows come home.

Bradleys/CV90s/Marders/BMPs all provide advantage over troops that don't have them in some situations. But in the ongoing game of Rock Paper Scissors they can be countered.
No disagreement there.
How many Armoured Brigades or Divisions does it take to cover 1200 km of Front? Doctrinally speaking. And, in addition to that how much of a Reaction force do you need react to enemy breakthroughs and how much of a Strike force do you need to conduct your own breakthroughs?

View attachment 78793

1989 Border -7000 km long but the key border was the key stretch was the 2200 km of the Inner German Border and the German - Czech border (1400 + 800 respectively)

1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty



Tank and ACV inventories are now measured in their hundreds. And where thousands exist, as in Russian fields or Dutch and American warehouses, the vast majority were built prior to 1989 to hold that wall. They are over 30 years old. Sometimes 50 years old.

And creating those vast fields of steel Bankrupted the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. And stunted the economic development of the West collectively.

So, again, are all infantry to be mechanized infantry?
I’m a full believer that there is a major difference between Light and Mech Infantry.
I don’t disagree that there can be a purpose to Light Armor Motorized Infantry as well.
But when you consider the mixture, you need to factor in what their purposes are.

If you’re slugging it out with an enemy, weight is a good thing, especially when that means a lot more armor, solid firepower and better off-road mobility.
 
The BMP’s aren’t even close, other than in theory.
Crew survivability, and ease of maintenance are on opposite ends of the spectrum on those platforms with the Bradley winning by miles.
Accepted that the capabilities of the systems are miles apart.
On the other hand the intended purpose of the systems was the same - with the BMP being the original model for the Bradley and the Marder and the Warrior.

No disagreement there.
There's a change!
Although in truth we only seem to disagree because we highlight the points of disagreement and just accept the points of agreement without acknowledgement

I’m a full believer that there is a major difference between Light and Mech Infantry.
Agreed
But is there a difference be Mech and Armored Infantry? Mech used to be M113 while Bradleys were Armored.
How about between Protected and Mech?
Motorized and Protected?
Light and Motorized?
Heliborne and Light?
Marine and Light?
Airborne and Light?
You can get into an awfully grey and nuanced discussion when you go down that rabbit hole.
In reality, in all cases you are talking about organizing and transporting the soldier with the rifle so that they can close and destroy.
Same person. Same job. Different bus.


I don’t disagree that there can be a purpose to Light Armor Motorized Infantry as well.
Agreement again. Protected Mobility? JLTVs, Foxhounds, Bushmasters, Fuchs or LAVIIs?

But when you consider the mixture, you need to factor in what their purposes are.
Absolutely.
The purpose of the soldier with the rifle is to close and destroy.
The purpose of the formation employing the rifle is a different discussion altogether.

If you’re slugging it out with an enemy, weight is a good thing, especially when that means a lot more armor, solid firepower and better off-road mobility.
Again. Agreed. Absolutely.
But not all points of contact require the same weight.
And some times there is no contact but there still needs to be a presence.
Does that presence need to be heavy, or light or just protected?
 
Accepted that the capabilities of the systems are miles apart.
On the other hand the intended purpose of the systems was the same - with the BMP being the original model for the Bradley and the Marder and the Warrior.


There's a change!
Although in truth we only seem to disagree because we highlight the points of disagreement and just accept the points of agreement without acknowledgement


Agreed
But is there a difference be Mech and Armored Infantry? Mech used to be M113 while Bradleys were Armored.
Not really the Bradley replaced the M113 in Mech/Armored units - the M113 was related to non direct combat transport.
The 82nd Abn for instance got M113's for Afghanistan when they came in to Kabul to help with the Elections in '04
*they parked them as they considered them deathtrap in a box.

How about between Protected and Mech?
Motorized and Protected?
Do you go into combat in conjunction with a tank?
If so, you probably want as near tank armor as you can. Let's be honest the Namer-I is about the only vehicle like that.
IN OOTW then you can dial back to the relative threat.
Light and Motorized?
Light Infantry are generally transport agnostic - fighting out of a rucksack on the back, versus gear in a vehicle.
Heliborne and Light?
Marine and Light?
Airborne and Light?
You can get into an awfully grey and nuanced discussion when you go down that rabbit hole.
In reality, in all cases you are talking about organizing and transporting the soldier with the rifle so that they can close and destroy.
Same person. Same job. Different bus.
It isn't, there is an entirely different mentality (or should be) because the way you fight is significantly different than if your fighting from a vehicle versus fighting from your boots.
Generally Airborne, and Airmobile are types of Light Infantry - the helicopter doesn't stay during the assault - the aircraft isn't parking next trench over etc.

Agreement again. Protected Mobility? JLTVs, Foxhounds, Bushmasters, Fuchs or LAVIIs?
Protected Mobility for the task - but generally not integral to the formation, or at least at the Coy and below level.
Absolutely.
The purpose of the soldier with the rifle is to close and destroy.
The purpose of the formation employing the rifle is a different discussion altogether.


Again. Agreed. Absolutely.
But not all points of contact require the same weight.
And some times there is no contact but there still needs to be a presence.
Does that presence need to be heavy, or light or just protected?
To me that is all enemy dependent - generally I would want my specialist light force in reserve -- for static areas a Light Force with protected mobility enablers could suffice -- but for "Contact" areas I would opt for heavier forces.

Yes the Protected Mobility may be able to exploit a break through very well, especially if the enemy doesn't have depth - but that isn't necessarily something I would want to expect would occur.
 
Not really the Bradley replaced the M113 in Mech/Armored units - the M113 was related to non direct combat transport.
The 82nd Abn for instance got M113's for Afghanistan when they came in to Kabul to help with the Elections in '04
*they parked them as they considered them deathtrap in a box.

In the Reagan years, as the Bradley was being fielded, a differentiation was made between those Divisions in Bradleys and those in M113s and both of those were different to the Light Infantry of the Marines, Airborne and Air Assault as well as the experimental LIDs.

The M113 Divs may have been Bradley-in-Waiting Divisions but they were organized on the basis of one squad one vehicle, just like the Strykers and unlike the Bradleys.

Do you go into combat in conjunction with a tank?
If you do then you are probably Armoured Infantry or a Panzer Grenadier and most of those troops are constrained in their organizations and capabilities by what the vehicles they mount can carry. Vis Bradley vs M113 or Stryker.

If so, you probably want as near tank armor as you can. Let's be honest the Namer-I is about the only vehicle like that.
IN OOTW then you can dial back to the relative threat.
And the Namer doesn't travel very far from its gas station. Just like the Merkava. The Israelis can afford to heavy up to the max.

Light Infantry are generally transport agnostic - fighting out of a rucksack on the back, versus gear in a vehicle.

Agreed. Kind of.

How far forward is the CQ and what vehicle is she driving?

Vehicle agnostic to my mind means that the infantry section/squad does not have a driver and/or a gunner. The section/squad could be transported in two or three light vehicles driven by others, or boats or helicopters driven by others, or trucks driven by others, or Light Protected Vehicles or Protected Vehicles or MRAPs or Bandvagons or Strykers, or LAVs or M113s or even CV90s .... all driven by others.

If the section/squad includes a driver or two, in my opinion (and I know it a wrong opinion but it is my opinion) then you are no longer talking about Infantry, you are talking at best about Mounted Infantry or Dragoons or you are talking about Panzer Grenadiers.

If the GIBs serve the vehicle it is a Cavalry unit.
If the vehicles serve the GIBs it is an Infantry unit.

@markppcli you can take your shots now. :D

It isn't, there is an entirely different mentality (or should be) because the way you fight is significantly different than if your fighting from a vehicle versus fighting from your boots.

I agree. See above. You call them Light Infantry. I just call them Infantry. And the difference between your Light Infantry and "Mech" Infantry is identical to the difference between my Infantry and Dragoons which have generally been absorbed with the other Horse Soldiers into the Cavalry. One mob fights on their feet and the vehicles, which may or may not belong to them, at taxis under their control. The other mob is bound to their vehicles and serve their vehicles and exist to help their vehicles move forwards.

Generally Airborne, and Airmobile are types of Light Infantry - the helicopter doesn't stay during the assault - the aircraft isn't parking next trench over etc.
Again agreed. Same for the boats. Same for the trucks. Same for the LPVs, and MRAPs and M113s and Strykers and, for the Ukrainians it seems to be true of their BTRs, BMPs and BMDs. All pretty much for the same reason. They don't have the weight to stand into the fight and slug it out. They deliver their infantry as near to the fight as possible then retires to Zulu with the CSM to supply an R&R centre that can replenish and refresh the Infantry.

Protected Mobility for the task - but generally not integral to the formation, or at least at the Coy and below level.
See. Again we agree.

To me that is all enemy dependent - generally I would want my specialist light force in reserve -- for static areas a Light Force with protected mobility enablers could suffice -- but for "Contact" areas I would opt for heavier forces.
And again. Agreement.

Yes the Protected Mobility may be able to exploit a break through very well, especially if the enemy doesn't have depth - but that isn't necessarily something I would want to expect would occur.
And ultimately that comes down to a judgement call.
I suspect that you wouldn't push a LAV 6 as far forwards for as long as might those that have more confidence in their vehicles or just see a greater necessity to giterdone with what is available. Frankly I'm with you. I'd go one bound further. I prefer to keep a hill between me and the other guy rather than relying on tin plates, broken tea cups and fireworks to keep me safe.

But that is just me. Although no expert it is an opinion I formed the first time I was locked in the back of a tin box.
 
I don’t know why falling back on a definition which lost all meaning in the mid 1700s is at all relevant. The last time the difference between a dragoon and anything else matter was when the British Army realized they could save money by renaming all their cavalry dragoons so they’d get paid less.
 
Back
Top