C3 Howitzer Replacement

[KevinB]

I still shake my head for any planned employment of the 81mm Mortar by Arty.
I would have sacrificed Infantry Bn’s to retain Cbt Spt in the remain Bn’s.

I was long gone from the gunner trade by the time the C3 came along, but I was still shaking my head on the LG1 versus the Brit gun decision. When in Cyprus, we found out the Para Bty role was evaporating, and M109’s coming to E Bty (no one in our troop appreciated my E Bty Track Toad T shirt sketch). But I was off to the PPCLI before any 109’s made it to Pet (which seemed rather retarded to me - but the SSF died along with AMF(L) and 2 CMBG grew like a tumor.

I’m still flabbergasted the 109’s where divested, but the writing was on the wall for the increased devaluation of the Artillery, and I haven’t seen anything from the CA suggesting there has been any credible attempt at a fix.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Under the heading of pound wise and penny foolish Infantry edition. We had the Infantry divesting ....well just about everyone but riflemen.Something that was spectacularly stupid , still can't believe that they did that.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I'll start with a logistics win. If one truck with one superfast launcher, or even a vertical launcher, can be employed in both Air Defence and MRLS batteries (and even Coastal Defence batteries) I would consider that a win. Use the same truck for logistics and it is a bigger win.

Being able to reassign Air Defence launchers to MRLS or Coastal command would be a bigger win yet.

@Kirkhill - in the land of the blind the one eyed man is King --
I suspect that those suggesting the 105 is a good idea probably haven't seen Artillery in Combat.
You shouldn't equate the 120mm Mortar to the 105mm, for a few reasons, 1 as @FJAG pointed out, that the Mortar is an ORGANIC Infantry system, 2 the payload on the 120mm is significantly more useful than the 105mm, the 105 looses a lot of effect due to the heavier casing so the 120mm actually has a larger area of effect.

Honestly the 81mm Mortar gives the 105mm How a run for its money on downrange effect.

Well long time ago I was an 81mm Mortarman and IIRC, the advantage of the mortar vs artillery, is that the mortar round comes in at 90 degree angle spreading its shrapnel horizontal to the ground resulting in a better kill effect. Artillery rounds on the other hand come in at a 45 degree angle resulting in most of its blast/fragmentIion either going into the ground or in the air.

The caveat here is that I'm remembering things from, ahem, a long time ago and technology I'm sure may have erased those advantages.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Well long time ago I was an 81mm Mortarman and IIRC, the advantage of the mortar vs artillery, is that the mortar round comes in at 90 degree angle spreading its shrapnel horizontal to the ground resulting in a better kill effect. Artillery rounds on the other hand come in at a 45 degree angle resulting in most of its blast/fragmentIion either going into the ground or in the air.

The caveat here is that I'm remembering things from, ahem, a long time ago and technology I'm sure may have erased those advantages.

There's an excellent argument for having lots of both, right there

 

[Kirkhill]

There's an excellent argument for having lots of both, right there

Which, if you believe Ben Wallace, is the conclusion the Brits are drawing. A lot fewer rifles. A lot more fires.

After all, if necessary, you can always hand a gunner or a mortarman a pointy stick and tell him to go sort out the rabble.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Which, if you believe Ben Wallace, is the conclusion the Brits are drawing. A lot fewer rifles. A lot more fires.

After all, if necessary, you can always hand a gunner or a mortarman a pointy stick and tell him to go sort out the rabble.

What's old is new again:


“Renown awaits the Commander who first in this war restores artillery to its prime importance upon the battlefield, from which it has been ousted by heavily armoured tanks. “

This is a quote from Winston Churchill in a memo sent on October 7th, 1941, and is generally thought to apply to Montgomery for the work that he did at 2nd El Alamein.

88 - The Role of Artillery at 2nd Alamein | The Principles of War Podcast

During the battle of 2nd Alamein Artillery played a critical role. What roles did the artillery perform during the battle?

theprinciplesofwar.com

 

[FJAG]

Well long time ago I was an 81mm Mortarman and IIRC, the advantage of the mortar vs artillery, is that the mortar round comes in at 90 degree angle spreading its shrapnel horizontal to the ground resulting in a better kill effect. Artillery rounds on the other hand come in at a 45 degree angle resulting in most of its blast/fragmentIion either going into the ground or in the air.

The caveat here is that I'm remembering things from, ahem, a long time ago and technology I'm sure may have erased those advantages.

The angles aren't that consistent but, you are right insofar as the angle of descent of a mortar is steeper than a howitzer fired at low angle. The splinter patterns vary with the angle of impact and the shape and characteristics of the ground at the point of impact but for an artillery round at ground burst the pattern is more like butterfly wings with the largest lobes going forward on both sides of the line gun/target. Air burst ammunition is a different matter all together. In general, artillery rounds also break into larger shards and splinters than mortar rounds. And again, modern rounds vary - the Excalibur round, for example, puts out a vicious spray of small splinters from a very low airburst. The splinter spread/terminal effects are an easy thing to compensate for by any trained forward observer.

 

[GR66]

I think that's too broad a statement. The artillery, as an institution, likes the 105 mm only because it can give it to the ResF without incurring significant expenses. Some ResF gunners probably like the gun as well as it makes a decent training aide.

On the other hand, no one in the artillery is looking at either the LG1 or the C3 as a viable combat weapon in general. There might be a niche use for the TG1. And, I've said above, If I had nothing else I'd go to war with the damn things rather than not provide indirect fire support at all.

The artillery likes, needs and wants a variety of weapon systems. The M777 will suffice nicely as a niche gun for operations of limited mobility. That fits in with what we did in Bosnia (albeit with LG1s) and Afghanistan. Add in limited air mobile operations and you are close to exhausting the M777s repertoire notwithstanding the way they are being used in Ukraine. We have enough M777s for those roles.

The CA needs an armoured 155mm SP (I prefer tracked but will accept wheeled as long as we keep using LAVs instead of tracked IFVs) and a HIMARS type of system for manoeuvre ops and should also build a capability with medium to long range UCAVs.

IMHO, no infantry battalion should be without its own organic 120mm mortars (and 81mm in the case of light and medium bns who may be expected to do dismounted ops at some point in time), ATGMs and a short range UCAV.

Not a UCAV per se, but the Brimstone on Boxer/HMT being showcased by MBDA as per the Defence Blog website could be a good ong range precision fires complement to the 155mm SP and HIMARS for the artillery. I'm sure that the same launcher could be LAV-mounted if desired, or mounted on the same truck as used by any one of our logistics/HIMARS/wheeled SP 155mm vehicles for mechanical commonality.

MBDA showcases new tank destroyer concepts​

NEWSARMYPRESS RELEASES
ByColton Jones

Sep 22, 2022
Modified date: 4 days ago

European missile maker MBDA, in co-operation with RBSL and Supacat, has unveiled a Brimstone missile-equipped variant of the Boxer and Supacat HMT vehicles at Defence Vehicles Dynamics (DVD) 2022.
MBDA’s ‘Land Precision Fires Family’ comprising Surface-Launched Brimstone and Land Precision Strike (LPS) are weapons that provide precision at layered ranges, operating 24/7 with low collateral effects across a wide range of operational scenarios, from peer conflict to a limited sub threshold operation.
According to a press release from MBDA, they will help commanders to win the deep fight and shape the close fight.
- ADVERTISEMENT - CONTINUE READING BELOW -

Mike Mew, UK Director Sales and Business Development: “The needs of the Army are clear and MBDA’s Future Portfolio, which contains the Land Precision Fires Family, can contribute to enabling CGS’s OP MOBILISE, accelerate Future Soldier, and meet key Land Industrial Strategy objectives. Working with the new Deep Recce Strike Brigade Combat Team is just one example of where MBDA is partnering with the Army to simplify and deliver precision-at-range complex weapons that are packed with the latest technology.”
The Brimstone on Boxer concept being showcased at DVD has been created by both RBSL and MBDA in response to British Army’s need for a Mounted Close Combat Overwatch (MCCO) capability, as part of its future anti-armour needs known as Battle Group Organic Anti-Armour (BGOAA).

Engaging quickly to deliver precision anti-armour effects at long ranges, the Brimstone on Boxer mission module provides the capability for Heavy Combat Teams to repel adversary formations and single targets. Rapidly providing an initial capability with current equipment and then spirally developing with broader battlefield integration is at the heart of this concept.

The Brimstone on HMT600concept has been created by both Supacat and MBDA to provide the Light Forces tactical commander with a similar and complementary organic Overwatch capability to rapidly deliver precision anti-armour effects at long ranges and in volume. Potentially integrating with in-service equipment such as the Forsberg Fused Target Locator (FTL) and MANTIS Battlefield Management System and also spirally developing over time.

 

[KevinB]

Not a UCAV per se, but the Brimstone on Boxer/HMT being showcased by MBDA as per the Defence Blog website could be a good ong range precision fires complement to the 155mm SP and HIMARS for the artillery. I'm sure that the same launcher could be LAV-mounted if desired, or mounted on the same truck as used by any one of our logistics/HIMARS/wheeled SP 155mm vehicles for mechanical commonality.

If you have HIMARS you have a LRPF ability - with PrSM.
If you have a 500+km capable missile you don't need to house it in an AFV.

 

[GR66]

If you have HIMARS you have a LRPF ability - with PrSM.
If you have a 500+km capable missile you don't need to house it in an AFV.

What's the cost of a PrSM vs a Brimstone? The right weapon for the right target.

I see HIMARS with the PrSM (or even the 300km range ATACMS) as filling a different role than HIMARS with the standard GMLRS munitions.

Same launch platform but the GMLRS units would be in Direct Support Batteries while PrSM/ATACMS equipped units would be Divisional-level for deep strike missions.

Great to have a single launch platform that can fill two slots in the Orbat by using different munitions.

A Brimstone launch vehicle I'd see fulfilling the precision strike role for DS Battalions.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not a UCAV per se, but the Brimstone on Boxer/HMT being showcased by MBDA as per the Defence Blog website could be a good ong range precision fires complement to the 155mm SP and HIMARS for the artillery. I'm sure that the same launcher could be LAV-mounted if desired, or mounted on the same truck as used by any one of our logistics/HIMARS/wheeled SP 155mm vehicles for mechanical commonality.

ACSV line is already going to be stretched thin with gap filling, 20-30 hulls to each of AGM, RiWP, and Spike N-Los makes a dent

This comment by the inaptly named IKnowNothing is intriguing.

Spike N-LOS is operated by the Brits as Exactor - now available in a 50 km version
The USMC has the LAV HERO-120 vehicle



The Brits have their Boxer Brimstone vehicle

Polish pick MBDA’s Brimstone missile for their new fleet of tank-busting vehicles

Brimstone has been in the news in the last few days after it emerged that Ukrainian troops had been using the British-supplied weapon to destroy Russian armor.

www.defensenews.com

Is that the AGM variant referred to by @IKnowNothing - AGM usually means Air to Ground Missile and that is what the Brimstone is

As for the RiWP - that sounds like the MOOG turret that can be variously configured. It is the turret used on the new MSHORAD vehicle

 

[KevinB]

What's the cost of a PrSM vs a Brimstone? The right weapon for the right target.

I see HIMARS with the PrSM (or even the 300km range ATACMS) as filling a different role than HIMARS with the standard GMLRS munitions.

Same launch platform but the GMLRS units would be in Direct Support Batteries while PrSM/ATACMS equipped units would be Divisional-level for deep strike missions.

HIMARS generally are not CS Batteries - even with GMLRS, they are still Div and higher assets.
Tube arty is CS work.

Great to have a single launch platform that can fill two slots in the Orbat by using different munitions.

I agree to a point - HIMARS being a good example -- MMEV being an example of trying to get too much out of one system.

A Brimstone launch vehicle I'd see fulfilling the precision strike role for DS Battalions.

I don't see the point of Brimstone for the CAF, given the proximity of Canada to the Arsenal of Democracy.
LocMart has some nifty refinements on Spike NLOS, as well as the new Hellfire (JAGM) has dual mode control (Laser and MMW)

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't see the point of Brimstone for the CAF, given the proximity of Canada to the Arsenal of Democracy.
LocMart has some nifty refinements on Spike NLOS, as well as the new Hellfire (JAGM) has dual mode control (Laser and MMW)

Mate.... I swear you are on commission....

 

[daftandbarmy]

HIMARS generally are not CS Batteries - even with GMLRS, they are still Div and higher assets.
Tube arty is CS work.

I agree to a point - HIMARS being a good example -- MMEV being an example of trying to get too much out of one system.


I don't see the point of Brimstone for the CAF, given the proximity of Canada to the Arsenal of Democracy.
LocMart has some nifty refinements on Spike NLOS, as well as the new Hellfire (JAGM) has dual mode control (Laser and MMW)

Of course we're not talking 'real' artillery until we start heading into the 240mm+ category which, given all the wonderful technology around today to help improve mobility and ballistics etc, should be able to provide us with a proper long term, heavy hitting, all weather battlefield dominator

 

[Kirkhill]

HIMARS generally are not CS Batteries - even with GMLRS, they are still Div and higher assets.
Tube arty is CS work.

I understood that Brimstone carries a 6.3 kg warhead. Hellfire (AGM-114) is in the 8 to 9 kg range or the same range as the Javelin (FGM-148). JAGM (the Joint AGM, AGM-179) is in the same general ball park. All are designed to take out individual vehicles (tanks or boats) and can be used to take out dicrete point targets like houses and bunkers. HIMARS takes out large targets like bridges, ammo dumps and CPs.

Brimstone's particular trick was that you could launch a swarm at a company or a battalion and the missiles would sort themselves out and hit one target apiece with their own onboard MMW radar. They didn't need a spotter or designator.

I agree to a point - HIMARS being a good example -- MMEV being an example of trying to get too much out of one system.

Are the US Army Warrants that fly AH-64s that much more skilled than the US Army's gunners?



Looks like a Multi Mission Effects Vehicle to me.

And that picture doesn't show the Sidewinders and Stingers they can currently carry. Nor the APKWS laser guided version of the Hydra-70. Nor does it properly express the array of warheads available for the Hydra-70 /APKWS Family.

Designation	Description	Weight	Payload	Fuze Type	Fuzing options
M151	High explosive (HEDP) '10 pounder'	8.7 pounds (3.9 kg) (w/o Fuze)	2.3 pounds (1.0 kg) Comp B-4 HE	M423	1,2,5,7,8
M156	White phosphorus munitions (WP)	9.65 pounds (4.38 kg)	2.2 pounds (1.00 kg) WP	M423 M429	1,2,6,7
M229	High explosive (HEDP); elongated M151 '17 pounder'	17.0 pounds (7.7 kg) (Fuzed)	4.8 pounds (2.2 kg) Comp B-4 HE	M423	1,2,6,7
M247	High-explosive anti-tank (HEAT)/high-explosive dual purpose (HEDP)	8.8 pounds (4.0 kg)	2.0 pounds (0.91 kg) Comp B HE	M438 PD	4 (integral to warhead)
M255	APERS (anti-personnel) warhead		2500 28 grains (1.8 g) flechettes		9
M255E1/A1	Flechette warhead	14.0 pounds (6.4 kg)	1179 60 grains (3.9 g) flechettes	M439	9
M257	Parachute illumination	11.0 pounds (5.0 kg)	One M257 Candle (Flare) 1 million candela	M442	10 (integral to warhead)
M259	White phosphorus (WP)				9
M261	Multi-purpose submunition (MPSM)	13.5 pounds (6.1 kg)	9 M73 (Grenade) Submunitions	M439 with M84 electric detonator	9
M264	Red phosphorus (RP) Smoke	8.6 pounds (3.9 kg)	72 RP Pellets	M439	9
M267	MPSM Practice	13.5 pounds (6.1 kg)	Three Marking SMs, 6 Metal Weights	M439 with M84 electric Detonator	9
M274	Practice (Smoke)	9.3 pounds (4.2 kg)	2 ounces (57 g) of potassium perchlorate and aluminum powder	M423	1
M278	Infra-red (IR) parachute illumination	11.0 pounds (5.0 kg)	One M278 IR Flare	M442	10 (integral to warhead)
M282	Multipurpose penetrator warhead	13.7 pounds (6.2 kg)	0.98 pounds (0.44 kg) PBXN-110	delayed
Mk 67 Mod 0	White phosphorus (WP)				1,2,6,7
Mk 67 Mod 1	Red phosphorus (RP)				1,2,6,7
WTU-1/B	Practice	9.3 pounds (4.2 kg)	Inert	None	None
WDU-4/A	APERS warhead	9.3 pounds (4.2 kg)	96 flechettes of unknown weight		12 (integral to warhead)
WDU-4A/A	APERS warhead	9.3 pounds (4.2 kg)	2205 20 grains (1.3 g) flechettes		12 (integral to warhead)

Nor does it demonstrate the conversion from the Hellfires to the JAGM system.




Looks like a Multi Mission Effects Vehicle to me.

 

[IKnowNothing]

@Kirkhill correct on the Moog RiwP and intended use, but AGM was refering to the Artillery Gun Module.
ACSV variants to cover SHORAD (RiwP), SP155 (AGM), and Bn AT (Spike N-Los)

 

[Kirkhill]

@Kirkhill correct on the Moog RiwP and intended use, but AGM was refering to the Artillery Gun Module.
ACSV variants to cover SHORAD (RiwP), SP155 (AGM), and Bn AT (Spike N-Los)

This beast?

Artillery Gun Module - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Boxer RCH 155 Self-Propelled Howitzer | Military-Today.com

The Boxer RCH 155, is a self-propelled artillery system, which utilizes 8x8 chassis of Boxer armored personnel carrier and 155 mm unmanned artillery gun module. This artillery system was introduced in 2014.

www.military-today.com

Is this for the Ukrainians?

 

[Kirkhill]

1 M777 Gun Crew = 1 AGM-LAV Gun Crew + 1 MSHORAD Gun Crew + 1 Bn AT N-LOS Gun Crew.

But that Bn (with the Spike) now has a PGM range of 50 km.

 

[Kirkhill]

This one? Firing on the move?

 

[KevinB]

I understood that Brimstone carries a 6.3 kg warhead. Hellfire (AGM-114) is in the 8 to 9 kg range or the same range as the Javelin (FGM-148). JAGM (the Joint AGM, AGM-179) is in the same general ball park. All are designed to take out individual vehicles (tanks or boats) and can be used to take out dicrete point targets like houses and bunkers. HIMARS takes out large targets like bridges, ammo dumps and CPs.

Brimstone's particular trick was that you could launch a swarm at a company or a battalion and the missiles would sort themselves out and hit one target apiece with their own onboard MMW radar. They didn't need a spotter or designator.





Are the US Army Warrants that fly AH-64s that much more skilled than the US Army's gunners?

View attachment 73847

Looks like a Multi Mission Effects Vehicle to me.

And that picture doesn't show the Sidewinders and Stingers they can currently carry. Nor the APKWS laser guided version of the Hydra-70. Nor does it properly express the array of warheads available for the Hydra-70 /APKWS Family.

I've never seen any AAM on an Apache - it's more of a theory than a reality.

Nor does it demonstrate the conversion from the Hellfires to the JAGM system.

It's not a conversion per say - its a new seeker unit.
Older ones are not being converted - new ones are being made as JAGM
The head is very similar and allows the same target after launch as Brimstone -- I wouldn't read too much into Brimstones press releases beyond that.

View attachment 73848

Looks like a Multi Mission Effects Vehicle to me.

And I re-iterated that tank hunting (or Anti Armor Defense) isn't the same things as Air Defense, and it should not be housed in the same system, as each is a primary task.