C3 Howitzer Replacement

[suffolkowner]

On the bomb and Japan.
Did the home islands of Japan really need to be invaded or could they not have been isolated and blockaded?
I also think there was a lot of value in seeing the destructive power of nuclear weapons in the real world vs the theoretical. Had the US not dropped the bombs could we or would we have avoided nuclear war without that evidence. Seeing is believing

 

[Rifleman62]

More people were killed in the bombing and firebombing of Tokyo than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Consider the fate of the thousands of POW's (138,000 killed), civilian internees and enslaved populus of occupied countries. Starvation, diseases, and mistreatment. The Japanese planned to murder all the POW's, and hundreds were after the surrender, especially aircrew.

Hard to forgive. Mountbatten never did.

STATISTICS OF JAPANESE GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER.

 

[Kirkhill]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1632737240492154881

6.9 million pounds=ouch
also 25 tonnes on 3 axles/6wheels

Mass	34 t (33 long tons; 37 short tons)
Length	14.3 m (46 ft 11 in)
Barrel length	8.06 m (26 ft 5 in) L/52
Width	3 m (9 ft 10 in)
Height	3.3 m (10 ft 10 in) top of roof 4 m (13 ft 1 in) top of roof-mounted weapon
Crew	3

Unit cost	US$4.5M[note 1]

Caliber	155 mm (6.1 in)
Elevation	+70° (1244mils)/-1° (-18mils)
Traverse	170° (3022mils) (85° left/85° right)
Rate of fire	8 rds/min rapid 1.25 rds/min sustained
Effective firing range	30 km (19 mi) standard shells 40 km (25 mi) base bleed 35 km (22 mi) 155 BONUS 50 km (31 mi) Excalibur
Feed system	Automatic
Sights	Computerised FCS with Sigma 30 navigation and pointing system

The system also includes an ammunition resupply vehicle, a support vehicle, BONUS submunitions[4] and M982 Excalibur guided projectiles.

@FJAG Think you'll be interested in this. The latest Wiki info indicates that the System has grown to three vehicles. In addition to the Gun vehicle and the "Limber" (Ammo resupply vehicle) there is now a separate support vehicle. Presumably to house the MRT team?

Crew now looks like 3 on the gun, 2 on the ammo and 2 to 4 gun techs.

And the price is similar to the Caesar in the 4 to 6 million Euro range.

 

[GK .Dundas]

On the bomb and Japan.
Did the home islands of Japan really need to be invaded or could they not have been isolated and blockaded?
I also think there was a lot of value in seeing the destructive power of nuclear weapons in the real world vs the theoretical. Had the US not dropped the bombs could we or would we have avoided nuclear war without that evidence. Seeing is believing

Apparently you haven't read much about the Japanese government of the day .
Strangest and most persistent example of group psychosis that (hopefully) anyone will ever see.
The Military was prepared to fight quite literally to fight to the last man , woman and child .

 

[suffolkowner]

Apparently you haven't read much about the Japanese government of the day .
Strangest and most persistent example of group psychosis that (hopefully) anyone will ever see.
The Military was prepared to fight quite literally to fight to the last man , woman and child .

so dont fight them? They were defeated and their defeat was inevitable without invasion of the home islands

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Apparently you haven't read much about the Japanese government of the day .
Strangest and most persistent example of group psychosis that (hopefully) anyone will ever see.
The Military was prepared to fight quite literally to fight to the last man , woman and child .

I think the Army was, both the Navy and Air Force had figured out the end had arrived. It was Army officers that tried to stop the Emperors address.

 

[Prairie canuck]

Sweden's Archer 155 SPG is able to be mounted on different platforms. Would it be feasible to send them a couple GDLS LAV platforms to prototype a LAV SPA? It's a limited expenditure so if it's not then no major financial harm but if it's a good fit then.. You know, the usual, manufactured in Canada, possibly expedited sole source, etc.
(KMW are doing something similar on a Boxer platform so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch)

After some research the length of the Archer would likely make it impossible to install on a LAV body, LAV approx 7.5m, Archer is over 14m, so scrap this idea.

 

[Dale Denton]

Perhaps a LAV-based ammo-carrier or reloader? Picturing the LAV chassis as a predecessor to the BOXERs swappable mission modules.

 

[Kirkhill]

After some research the length of the Archer would likely make it impossible to install on a LAV body, LAV approx 7.5m, Archer is over 14m, so scrap this idea.

This an alternative Archer Carrier being promoted by BAE. The MAN HX3 8x8 with armoured cab.

This is the Ammo Carrier

Rheinmetall is also promoting the MAN HX3 as an RCH Carrier.

Compare that to the Boxer based RCH 155

My preference would be, in the long range support category (L52 or L59), the armoured HX3 over either the Boxer or the LAV.

The same vehicle would suffice not just as prime mover but also Ammo Carrier, MRT, Logistics and carriers for LRPFs as well as GBAD.

It is already in use for the British Sky Sabre system

And proposed as a carrier for a Long Range Precision Fires System

Yes. It is the same photograph

The launcher vehicle system for CAMM has been specifically designed to accept larger-diameter missiles, cunning!

Land Precision Strike - Think Defence

Land Precision Strike will rapidly engage relocatable high value targets in warfighting and lower intensity operations

www.thinkdefence.co.uk

Think Defence article can be usefully read alongside

Mounted Close Combat Overwatch (MCCO) - Think Defence

Mounted Close Combat Overwatch (MCCO) is a British Army requirement for a long-range anti-armour weapon system

www.thinkdefence.co.uk

Striker, Boxer, LAV, Brimstone and SPEAR form the core of the discussions.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Trying to hem it into the LAV chassis creates all sorts of issues, even if you manage it, then it's at the expense of stowed rounds.

 

[FJAG]

@FJAG Think you'll be interested in this. The latest Wiki info indicates that the System has grown to three vehicles. In addition to the Gun vehicle and the "Limber" (Ammo resupply vehicle) there is now a separate support vehicle. Presumably to house the MRT team?

Crew now looks like 3 on the gun, 2 on the ammo and 2 to 4 gun techs.

And the price is similar to the Caesar in the 4 to 6 million Euro range.

I'm on the Archer side. It fires with its crew under armour while Caesar has them out in the open. If they ever fix that I'll rethink things.

With respect to support vehicles I'm not so sure about what still looks to me like a thin skinned cargo vehicle. The way that I visualize an Archer detachment working is with a gun and two armoured ammo limbers. The two limbers circulate with one accompanying the gun allowing it to reload tactically either in a gun position or a tactical reloading hide while the second limber circulates back to an administrative but close ammunition point set up by the battery or regiment. While the limbers also need to be armoured they should be capable of easily transferring projectiles and charges from the limber to the gun's magazine as under cover as possible. The guns current design isn't fully amenable to this.

I'm not sure why you would have an MRT with each gun. That's overkill unless Swedish technology has gone crappy. You definitely need an MRT/Wpns/Electronics tech team at battery level - maybe even two teams - that can be sent out as required. I would expect them to lay low in an administrative area within a two to three kilometre drive of the battery's several guns.

Over and above the ammo limbers you also need a system of moving ammo forward to the battery/regiment ammo point. That depends very much on how you want to set up your arty ammo logistics system (divisionally or brigade) so I'll leave that other than to say - it's got to be figued in to the equasion.

Incidentally are we looking to replace C3s with nukes now? How did this WW2 discussion make its way in here?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Incidentally are we looking to replace C3s with nukes now? How did this WW2 discussion make its way in here?

Well, you know Gunners... always dick measuring

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm on the Archer side. It fires with its crew under armour while Caesar has them out in the open. If they ever fix that I'll rethink things.

I agree on Archer vs Caesar. But I have to say I becoming more intrigued with the RCH 155, especially if it is mounted on a stable load carrier instead of being stuck on top of that Boxer thinggy.

RCH 155 - KMW

Die RCH 155 im Härtetest

www.kmweg.de

2 man crew (similar to Archer) with 30 ready rounds on board (21 onboard the Archer)

With respect to support vehicles I'm not so sure about what still looks to me like a thin skinned cargo vehicle. The way that I visualize an Archer detachment working is with a gun and two armoured ammo limbers. The two limbers circulate with one accompanying the gun allowing it to reload tactically either in a gun position or a tactical reloading hide while the second limber circulates back to an administrative but close ammunition point set up by the battery or regiment. While the limbers also need to be armoured they should be capable of easily transferring projectiles and charges from the limber to the gun's magazine as under cover as possible. The guns current design isn't fully amenable to this.

I'm not sure why you would have an MRT with each gun. That's overkill unless Swedish technology has gone crappy. You definitely need an MRT/Wpns/Electronics tech team at battery level - maybe even two teams - that can be sent out as required. I would expect them to lay low in an administrative area within a two to three kilometre drive of the battery's several guns.

Perhaps both issues are related to the Concept of Operations? If the guns are to be dispersed and constantly on the move, perhaps with cached ammunition sea cans?

Perhaps (that word again) the battery commander, rather than having all his guns in one place with a common load on board, is expected to pick rounds from across those guns in his battery that are suitably loaded and will bear on the target? A lot of trust seems to be placed on the ability of an individual howitzer to emulate a 1 round for effect TOT battery shoot by means of the MRSI capability.

You have no knowledge of these things but what I read but I am sensing that as is the case with a lot of other stuff there are a lot of changes in the wind currently.

Over and above the ammo limbers you also need a system of moving ammo forward to the battery/regiment ammo point. That depends very much on how you want to set up your arty ammo logistics system (divisionally or brigade) so I'll leave that other than to say - it's got to be figued in to the equasion.

I can see that. Especially if the gun dets are ducking and diving all over the countryside and relying on comms for co-ordination.

Incidentally are we looking to replace C3s with nukes now? How did this WW2 discussion make its way in here?

'Cause.... as usual.

 

[FJAG]

Well, you know Gunners... always dick measuring

Calibre matters.

 

[ArmyRick]

Calibre matters.

The Longer the Barrel, the more acurate, correct?

 

[Eaglelord17]

I think by the time war in the Pacific was drawing to a close and the only thing stopping it from being over the planned invasion of the main islands of Japan. People were tired of the war, some of them been fighting the war for 3 and half years and never saw any where close to home and could not see the end ever coming.

Every Allied force was getting ready to send troops to assist in the invasion fleet and force. Other Japanese Islands they fought to the last man standing then forced the civilian population to commit suicide on mass. US Forces estimated 400 000 to 800 000 dead, between 1.4 and 1.7 million wounded. Plus another 5 to 10 million Japanese dead.

The Americans had already had piled up huge stats in the Island hopping campaign.
The total dead or missing were 41,592 for all U.S. Army ground troops in the Pacific and southeast Asia, with another 145,706 wounded. The Marine Corps and attached Navy corpsmen suffered total casualties of 23,160 killed or missing and 67,199 wounded. The U.S. Navy lost 31,157 killed in action out of a total of 62,858 combat casualties in the Pacific, a figure of nearly 50%. The U.S. Army Air Forces lost 15,694 dead and missing out of a total of 24,230 casualties in the Pacific, a figure of 65%.

Japan reported over 2.12 million troops dead over the course of the war. This did not include the civilian deaths from bombings and suicide.

Not saying the atomic bomb was the only answer but how many lives did it save? How many lives did it ruin?

Hard to argue the invasion would of been better or worse ? We have to remember that the numbers equal to people. How many people were saved by the bombings?

Not a choice I would want to decide as to what way was the better solution at the time.

My argument is it is a war crime. There is no way you can convince me dropping two atomic bombs on two civilian population centers is anything but that. If Russia dropped a nuke on Kiev today to end the war and save thousands of their troops lives, would we be sitting here going, 'good job Russia, you ended the war quicker'? Or would we say they are a bunch of murderers?

If your options are commit war crimes or don't, you should always not. The fact the US and other countries covered up the effects of the bombs being dropped for decades afterwards speaks to the fact they knew how atrocious a act it was. If we want to argue we were the good guys in history, we should stop pretending the crimes we committed were justified.

There can always be a argument for atrocities to be committed and justified, as at the end of the day there can be a net benefit to it. Doesn't make it right.

 

[Maxman1]

Sooooo, about the C3...

 

[Kirkhill]

My argument is it is a war crime. There is no way you can convince me dropping two atomic bombs on two civilian population centers is anything but that. If Russia dropped a nuke on Kiev today to end the war and save thousands of their troops lives, would we be sitting here going, 'good job Russia, you ended the war quicker'? Or would we say they are a bunch of murderers?

If your options are commit war crimes or don't, you should always not. The fact the US and other countries covered up the effects of the bombs being dropped for decades afterwards speaks to the fact they knew how atrocious a act it was. If we want to argue we were the good guys in history, we should stop pretending the crimes we committed were justified.

There can always be a argument for atrocities to be committed and justified, as at the end of the day there can be a net benefit to it. Doesn't make it right.

Constitutional Rights Foundation

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION Bill of Right in Action Summer 1999 (15:3)Rules of WarBRIA 15:3 Home | Firestorms: The Bombing of Civilians in World War II | Choices: Truman, Hirohito, and the Atomic Bomb | Ne, Before World War II, most nations condemned targeting civilians in bombing raids...

www.crf-usa.org

 

[FJAG]

Perhaps both issues are related to the Concept of Operations? If the guns are to be dispersed and constantly on the move, perhaps with cached ammunition sea cans?

Ammo logistics is an art as well as a science regardless if your guns operate in clumps or individually. Caching presupposes some form of stability - possible for defensive and retrograde operations (albeit one might have to BIP a few) while in offensive operations your caches need wheels under them. I don't want to sound too negative but in 2006 we had trouble getting it done right for as few as four howitzers.

Perhaps (that word again) the battery commander, rather than having all his guns in one place with a common load on board, is expected to pick rounds from across those guns in his battery that are suitably loaded and will bear on the target?

Again, easier said than done. We have much more capable computer systems now that can work all of that out on the fly. Dispersed guns can mass fire much easier now then ever before. Precision munitions require far fewer rounds to achieve effects but providing them with security and sustainment is significantly more complex. One complication is that gunfire attracts counterfire. Rear area space is at a premium. One doesn't want their highly mobile guns to shoot and scoot from next to some other installation that isn't as mobile and parked in the same space. Guns, especially close support ones, aren't as free-roaming .

A lot of trust seems to be placed on the ability of an individual howitzer to emulate a 1 round for effect TOT battery shoot by means of the MRSI capability.

Not really a "lot" of trust. It's a capability for some guns and runs more as a marketing feature rather than a true practical feature. We've played with this concept since the 70s. MRSI only matters for targets that can rapidly change their profile, like troops in the open, who can go prone in an instant. With variable airburst ammunition that doesn't matter as a prone person makes at least as efficient an airburst target than a standing one. Targets that can leave the target area, like armoured vehicles, are more complex and with those one guided munition far exceeds the effect of a number of MSRI delivered dumb ones. (And I don't think we have the tech available to easily guide multiple MSRI projectiles)

You have no knowledge of these things but what I read but I am sensing that as is the case with a lot of other stuff there are a lot of changes in the wind currently.

????

There very definitely are. But you have to keep thinking in layers and capabilities and desired effects and how to employ the different systems efficiently and economically. One tends to forget that economy of effort continues to be a principle of war. You can't keep throwing $100,000 and $1,000,000 missiles and rockets at everything. Sometimes a $300 brick of steel and TNT will do. Canada has an issue with scale as well. And as I keep saying, until you find out what we intend to do as a country, all speculation about the tools needed are just that, speculation.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ammo logistics is an art as well as a science regardless if your guns operate in clumps or individually. Caching presupposes some form of stability - possible for defensive and retrograde operations (albeit one might have to BIP a few) while in offensive operations your caches need wheels under them. I don't want to sound too negative but in 2006 we had trouble getting it done right for as few as four howitzers.

Again, easier said than done. We have much more capable computer systems now that can work all of that out on the fly. Dispersed guns can mass fire much easier now then ever before. Precision munitions require far fewer rounds to achieve effects but providing them with security and sustainment is significantly more complex. One complication is that gunfire attracts counterfire. Rear area space is at a premium. One doesn't want their highly mobile guns to shoot and scoot from next to some other installation that isn't as mobile and parked in the same space. Guns, especially close support ones, aren't as free-roaming .


Not really a "lot" of trust. It's a capability for some guns and runs more as a marketing feature rather than a true practical feature. We've played with this concept since the 70s. MRSI only matters for targets that can rapidly change their profile, like troops in the open, who can go prone in an instant. With variable airburst ammunition that doesn't matter as a prone person makes at least as efficient and airburst target than a standing one. Targets that can leave the target area, like armoured vehicles, are more complex and with those one guided munition far exceeds the effect of a number of MSRI delivered dumb ones. (And I don't think we have the tech available to easily guide multiple MSRI projectiles)

????

There very definitely are. But you have to keep thinking in layers and capabilities and desired effects and how to employ the different systems efficiently and economically. One tends to forget that economy of effort continues to be a principle of war. You can't keep throwing $100,000 and $1,000,000 missiles and rockets at everything. Sometimes a $300 brick of steel and TNT will do. Canada has an issue with scale as well. And as I keep saying, until you find out what we intend to do as a country, all speculation about the tools needed are just that, speculation.

But your brick launcher costs $5 to 6,000,000 dollars, perhaps more and requires a couple more $500,000 trucks with seacans loaded with 20 to 30 tonnes of bricks and explosives. And every few seacans it needs to be pulled out of the line and serviced.

Comparatively, the PLS with trailer has a haul capacity of 66,000 pounds, a gain of 50% over the LHS system, increasing the number of complete 155mm rounds the system can carry by 52, for a total of 172.

M777A2 FA Battalion Use of the Pallet Loading System - United States Field Artillery Association

www.fieldartillery.org