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

New Guns for 1 RCHA...

So what your saying is you haven't done time with the guns? Tell ya what trucks sound cool and all,but with operational focus being a mountain terrian,towed is better cause it can also be transported by helicopter.
 
goatrodeo said:
So what your saying is you haven't done time with the guns? Tell ya what trucks sound cool and all,but with operational focus being a mountain terrian,towed is better cause it can also be transported by helicopter.

I am basing my comments and suggestions on what some gunners are telling me, and from what I have heard from one gunner, the towed 155mm guns were long in comming.

I am not saying we should dump our towed 155mm guns. Experience has shown that you need both self-propelled AND towed guns, as they both have separate qualities that make them essential to a modern army. The truck based systems make more sense for the CF as we don't have the big airlifters like the Americans do to cart around M109's, nor the money to buy them in significant quantities. A mix of both systems (both towed and self-propelled) would be best.
 
Armymatters said:
I am well aware that Bofors Archer is A400M transportable, and the Denel system is also apparantly air-portable using the A400M.

Funny, I was under the impression that the A400 isn't up in the air yet.
Would it be that Bofors and Denel have specs that are allegedly A400 transportable?
 
Armymatters said:
The truck based systems make more sense for the CF as we don't have the big airlifters like the Americans do to cart around M109's, nor the money to buy them in significant quantities. A mix of both systems (both towed and self-propelled) would be best.

Even if we would have strategic airlifters. The US found out that moving large forces with airplanes was not the way to go. You are proposing that we purchase some mbts and some big ships to move them, then why not purchase some good tracked SPs and move them with the mbts?

 
1. Geo, you are right about that. I have seen the dimensions and the combat weight of both vehicles, and they are both within the A400M's capabilites.
2. Clément Barbeau Vermet, what I am saying is that what we really need is a improvement on current capablities. Current tracked systems do not offer the latest technology (i.e. M109A6 and PzH 2000 have lower range, and does not offer some subtantial tactical capabilites), while the new truck based systems, though more radical, offer the latest in technology (ER-FB guns, MRSI capabilites, etc), while being packaged in a light, easy to carry and portable system. Canada should think outside the box, beyond tracked SP guns, as the more radical systems have more potential.
 
Armymatters said:
Current tracked systems do not offer the latest technology (i.e. M109A6 and PzH 2000 have lower range, and does not offer some subtantial tactical capabilites), while the new truck based systems, though more radical, offer the latest in technology (ER-FB guns, MRSI capabilites, etc), while being packaged in a light, easy to carry and portable system. Canada should think outside the box, beyond tracked SP guns, as the more radical systems have more potential.

Archer and G6 have a max range of 60 km and a max rate of fire of 8/9 rounds p. min.
PzH 2000 has a max range of 50 km and a max rate of fire of 12 rds p. min.

In the first gulf war, the USA army could detect incoming enemy shells and give their arty batteries orders to fire back EVEN BEFORE the incoming shells had landed... all this because of counter-battery radars. And this was a decade and a half ago. To ''counter'' counter-battery radars, we then use shoot-and scoot tactics which limits the effectiveness of artillery. To remain effective, you have to be able to fire the most rds possible during the very short period of time you are firing. The PzH 2000 is the best at doing this while also giving the user a very good range.The PzH 2000 also has better mobility and protection. It even has IR sights and fire-control for BOTH commander and gunner for direct firing.
 
Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
Archer and G6 have a max range of 60 km and a max rate of fire of 8/9 rounds p. min.
PzH 2000 has a max range of 50 km and a max rate of fire of 12 rds p. min.

In the first gulf war, the USA army could detect incoming enemy shells and give their arty batteries orders to fire back EVEN BEFORE the incoming shells had landed... all this because of counter-battery radars. And this was a decade and a half ago. To ''counter'' counter-battery radars, we then use shoot-and scoot tactics which limits the effectiveness of artillery. To remain effective, you have to be able to fire the most rds possible during the very short period of time you are firing. The PzH 2000 is the best at doing this while also giving the user a very good range.The PzH 2000 also has better mobility and protection. It even has IR sights and fire-control for BOTH commander and gunner for direct firing.

According to my copy of Jane's Tank & Combat Vehicle Recognition Guide (version 2003), PzH 2000 has a range of 30 km with standard NATO-projectiles, 36.5km with base-bleed ammunition, and up to 40 km with assisted projectiles; significantly less than what the Archer and G6 offers. Archer is also faster on the roads by 10km/h. Both systems are equivalant in fire rate; Archer can fire 20 rounds in 2.5 minutes, PzH 2000 in the same time frame. Both have,  direct fire capabilites up to 2 km (and if your SP artillery has to operate in DF mode, something is already wrong with your defense). However, Archer has a significant advantage in crew costs; 3-4 men compared to PzH 2000, which needs 5. Archer also has a unique advantage of having a fully integrated land navigation system that gives the coordinates of the gun position and automatic alignment of the barrel, not found in PzH 2000. For the shoot and scoot tactics, Archer has a into-action time of less than 50 s. For a typical artillery sequence using the Archer is as follows: into action; fire 8 rounds; out of action and move 500 m takes less than 3 minutes. According to Global Security, that compared to conventional full-tracked self-propelled artillery systems, these weapons would be cheaper to procure and maintain and offer greater strategic mobility.

What would perhaps be best if a direct comparison can be made between both systems in field conditions, and with crews familar to the systems. But from the hints that the DND and Hiller is tossing out, the Future Indirect Fire System is being favourable towards the Bofors Archer, the Giat Caesar, the BAe LAV III based 155mm system (under development), as Hiller and the DND stated that they wanted the best use of existing howitzer equipments, of which I am interpreting ( I could be wrong) to be a off-the-shelf system (like Archer or Caesar), or some sort of internally developed system using the M777 and a truck.

Edit: I can't spell 'future'... lol...
 
Armymatters said:
According to my copy of Jane's Tank & Combat Vehicle Recognition Guide (version 2003), PzH 2000 has a range of 30 km with standard NATO-projectiles, 36.5km with base-bleed ammunition, and up to 40 km with assisted projectiles; significantly less than what the Archer and G6 offers. Archer is also faster on the roads by 10km/h. Both systems are equivalant in fire rate; Archer can fire 20 rounds in 2.5 minutes, PzH 2000 in the same time frame. Both have,  direct fire capabilites up to 2 km. However, Archer has a significant advantage in crew costs; 3-4 men compared to PzH 2000, which needs 5. Archer also has a unique advantage of having a fully integrated land navigation system that gives the coordinates of the gun position and automatic alignment of the barrel, not found in PzH 2000. these weapons would offer greater strategic mobility.

rate of 9 rounds per minute (archer) From Bofors Defence

The firing rate of the PzH 2000 was 12 rounds in 59.74 seconds, and 20 rounds in 1 minute 47 seconds, during firing tests in October 1997 with an improved autoloader. From Army Technology

The PzH 2000 carries 60 rounds so it does not need another ammo supply vehicle to follow it. This offers better tactical mobility AND better strategic mobility (if you transpout it by sea).

The PzH 2000 can use an automatic mode of operation including the data radio link with an external command and control system. The autonomous fire control functions are controlled by an on-board MICMOS computer supplied by EADS. Using the automatic mode, target engagements can be carried out by a crew of two. Using the fire control data provided by the ballistics computer, the gun is automatically laid and relayed during the mission. From Army Technology

The L52 gun can reach 50 km with Excalibur.

Wheeled systems are slightly faster on roads, but when they get bogged in mud or snow lets just admit they are not so fast.
 
And it weighs 55 tons according to your same source, with a road speed of 60 km/h, requiring a tank transporter, a fuel bowser and similar track, bogie, sprocket and engine support as a tank.
 
Kirkhill said:
And it weighs 55 tons according to your same source, with a road speed of 60 km/h, requiring a tank transporter, a fuel bowser and similar track, bogie, sprocket and engine support as a tank.

I forgot that... thanks Kirkhill...  :salute:
So in comparison, Archer requires no tank transporter (its a truck remember?), requires less fuel (so the fuel bowser is not needed as often), and the drive train is similar to a heavy truck, in this case, a commercially available Volvo 6x6.
 
Kirkhill said:
And it weighs 55 tons according to your same source, with a road speed of 60 km/h, requiring a tank transporter, a fuel bowser and similar track, bogie, sprocket and engine support as a tank.

It is so heavy because it carries 60 rds.....so it does not need another vehicule to carry more rds. Its weight would be reduced if we would operate it with 2 men wich is possible. Compare the 2-men 50 T PzH 2000 with the 3/4 man Archer and the 2 men ammo vehicle you will see the PzH is not bad after all.

 
Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
It is so heavy because it carries 60 rds.....so it does not need another vehicule to carry more rds. Its weight would be reduced if we would operate it with 2 men wich is possible. Compare the 2-men 50 T PzH 2000 with the 3/4 man Archer and the 2 men ammo vehicle you will see the PzH is not bad after all.

You still need a tank transporter for the PzH 2000... and the M795 155m round weights in at 102 pounds or 46kg. The extra 20 rounds PzH 2000 (Archer carries 20 rounds in the magazine, plus another 20 ready to load) carries means that it is carrying an extra 1 ton of weight of ammunition compared to Archer. Archer also weights less than a third of PzH 2000 (20 tons). A ammunition carrying truck (we will use the Steyr Percheron or the HLVW for this duty) weights in at around 10 tons. Combined, that is still less than half the weight of the PzH 2000, and the entire vehicle and ammunition trail can self deploy, meaning a smaller logistics footprint.
 
Armymatters said:
You still need a tank transporter for the PzH 2000

I don't get why you need a tank transporter for the PzH 2000, it is only 10 km/h slower than Archer. We could also make it faster and lighter by making it 2-man crew, taking off the commander sight and fire-control and re-engine it with a more powerful but just as big euro pwr pack.
 
Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
I don't get why you need a tank transporter for the PzH 2000, it is only 10 km/h slower than Archer. We could also make it faster and lighter by making it 2-man crew, taking off the commander sight and fire-control and re-engine it with a more powerful but just as big euro pwr pack.

The thing is as big as a tank, and has tracks like a tank. Tracked vehicles require that you have to place them on a tank transporter or something similar to reduce the wear and tear on the tracks. The huge weight of the tank (or a self-propelled gun the of the same weight) combined with the relative weakness of the track assembly makes the maximum road speed of such a vehicle in reality a burst speed, which can be kept up for only a short time before there is a mechanical breakdown. Although the maximum off-road speed is lower, it cannot be kept up continuously for a day, given the variety and unpredictability of off-road terrain (with the possible exception of plains and sandy deserts). Prolonged use of tracked vehicles without being placed on a transporter places enormous strain on the drive transmission and the mechanics of the tracks, which must be overhauled or replaced regularly.

When moving in a country or region with no rail infrastructure and few good roads, or a place with roads riddled by mines or frequent ambushes, the average speed of advance of a tank unit or tracked self-propelled artillery unit in a day is comparable to that of a man on a horse or bicycle. Frequent halts must be planned for preventive maintenance and verifications in order to avoid breakdowns during combat. This is in addition to the tactical halts needed so that the infantry or the air units can scout ahead for the presence of enemy antitank groups.

Wheeled vehicles have the advantage of being able to self-deploy; there is no need to drag them around as there is less maintenance involved with wheeled vehicles, and there is less chance of a breakdown. In the rare case that a wheel bursts, replacing the wheel is very quick and easy (jack up the wheel, take a wrench and unbolt the tyre, take the tyre off the axle, swap with a new tyre, bolt it back on the axle, lower the vehicle, and off you go), while a thrown track takes hours fix.

Edit: In fact, I have a book "Into The Storm: A Study In Command" by Tom Clancy and retired US Army General Fred Franks, Jr., regarding the 1991 Gulf War. The book mentions the logistical difficulties in getting the tanks to the front lines in the 1991 Gulf War, to the point where the British 1st Armoured Division, when they found themselves short of tank transporters had to drive across the desert to their positions which was murder on the tanks. I suggest you read the book, as it is a good read.
http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/item.asp?Item=978042519677&Catalog=Books&Ntt=Into+The+Storm%3A+A+Study+In+Command&N=35&Lang=en&Section=books&zxac=1
 
OK, I give up. As long that our army has something better than this MOBAT crap to give me a hand when I get in trouble in the future is fine for me.
 
Armymatters said:
the BAe LAV III based 155mm system or some sort of internally developed system using the M777 and a truck.

Have some links for that? Sounds interesting. I did a search and found nothing. Thanks.
 
Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
Have some links for that? Sounds interesting. I did a search and found nothing. Thanks.

Sure:
http://www.global-defence.com/2002/land-ro.html
"The LWSP allows collaboration with military vehicle producers because the Howitzer design concept is based on the XM777 ordnance and an 8x8-wheeled vehicle."
 
Armymatters said:
Sure:

"The LWSP allows collaboration with military vehicle producers because the Howitzer design concept is based on the XM777 ordnance and an 8x8-wheeled vehicle."

Humm, I don't think this is the one (39 caliber, manual loading). Maybe LAV-AGM.
( http://www.army-technology.com/projects/artillery/ )

Artillery Gun Module (AGM) is an air-transportable, medium-weight, turreted self-propelled howitzer based on the proven technology of the PzH 2000 SP howitzer. The module can be fitted on a heavy 6x6 or 8x8 chassis.The system also has a separate dedicated auxiliary power unit. The turret is of lightweight aluminium armour construction. The 12.5t turret carries 30 projectiles and charges.The AGM can do Multiple-Round Simultaneous-Impact (MRSI) firing. The howitzer on the MLRS chassis is air transportable on an Airbus A400M transporter aircraft.

We could install the AGM on a ''flat bed'' LAV. It can fire Excalibur up to a range of 50 km. With the improved autoloader trialled on the PzH 2000, it would have a rate of fire of 8 rds per min. It would also have better protection and mobility than Archer, for example.
 
Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
Humm, I don't think this is the one (39 caliber, manual loading). Maybe LAV-AGM.
( http://www.army-technology.com/projects/artillery/ )

Artillery Gun Module (AGM) is an air-transportable, medium-weight, turreted self-propelled howitzer based on the proven technology of the PzH 2000 SP howitzer. The module can be fitted on a heavy 6x6 or 8x8 chassis.The system also has a separate dedicated auxiliary power unit. The turret is of lightweight aluminium armour construction. The 12.5t turret carries 30 projectiles and charges.The AGM can do Multiple-Round Simultaneous-Impact (MRSI) firing. The howitzer on the MLRS chassis is air transportable on an Airbus A400M transporter aircraft.

We could install the AGM on a ''flat bed'' LAV. It can fire Excalibur up to a range of 50 km. With the improved autoloader trialled on the PzH 2000, it would have a rate of fire of 8 rds per min. It would also have better protection and mobility than Archer, for example.

Archer is already a armoured platform. It has armour that is equivalent to a M113, and the ammunition is carried under armour separate from the crew, enhancing surviability.
 
Armymatters said:
Archer is already a armoured platform. It has armour that is equivalent to a M113, and the ammunition is carried under armour separate from the crew, enhancing surviability.

LAVs have better armor than M113 and better mobility than Archer.
What is more important is commonality. We already have a lot of LAVs but we do not have any Archer trucks.
 
Back
Top