- Reaction score
My choice is to match the Heavy Armoured Cars with Artillery with similar levels of protection and mobility. In other words, highway bound, wheeled, non amphibious vehicles with protection against 30 mm rounds.
uhm - you need a TANK for that.
30mm chews through a LAV
The Extended Range shells for the 155mm are not significantly more expensive - they only get really $$ when you want a precision strike at 70km.The other characteristic is a weapon with the greatest range possible that I can fit on to such a platform to keep the enemy at bay as far as possible. These days that means weapons with ranges of 70 km and over. Cannons can achieve those ranges, as can the M777, with expensive custom rounds. But missiles can range farther.
EW ECM will bring a screeching halt to your loitering munitions.One area where I think my thoughts run differently to those commonly expressed here is that I do not see the missiles (rockets) as expensive, limited guns. I see them as cheap, flexible aircraft. I don't see them as ballistic weapons firing bullets that can only engage in straight lines. I see them as launchers that can deploy missiles that can fly complex flight paths and, currently, deploy loitering munitions that can circle in a cab-rank over the battlefield. That can engage the enemy from any aspect, including their rear, including behind cover all the while making it difficult to track the missile back to its launch point. The launcher, in any event, has moved down the highway to a new launch point and may have already launched another batch of missiles.
Tube arty with its dumb ammo doesn't have issues there.
Yes.Are those missiles more expensive than bullets? Yes.
Are those missiles more expensive than a squadron of helicopters operating from a Forward Operating Base (in the rear)? More expensive than a squadron of F18s (or F35s) operating, for a limited time, weather permitting, from an airfield a long way to the rear?
Again EW means that there is the potential for anything not commanded or aimed directly by a person not to be useful.If the 81mm mortar is the Battalion Commander's Artillery than I suggest that RPAS, LAMs and HIMARS launched GMLRSs should be seen as the Brigadier's Air Force. One that lets her see, and fight, beyond the hill.
You can't Arty your way to Victory - you can Arty a lot of things - but unless you are dropping Million Dollar Precision Strike munitions (that still need to be targeted) on every trench you see - you need to close with an assault the objective.A further reason I favour artillery generally is that I aspire to minimize the number of Canadian casualties. And the more effective we can be without having to close with to destroy then the fewer Canadians are put at risk and the more likely, I believe, that the governement will be inclined to deploy the Army. And the more deployments, the more utility, the more visibility, the more money and the more people.
You miss the entire point to what roles Artillery has - @FJAG and I both told you why the 777's are needed - not just for the Res.The M777 was a relatively cheap capital expenditure that ate up more people than the artillery had available to do all the jobs asked of it. It is still doing that.
One section equals one gun.
One section, with the same manpower could equal 3 guns with greater range, and more mobility, or 2 guns and more ammunition with equal mobility.
As for strategic mobility 2 of the C17s could lift 4 to 6 guns. Heck they managed to get a squadron of tanks into Afghanistan, given enough time and some help from their friends. And the Dutch managed to get their tracked PzH2000s into the field as well.
Will the Archer work well in Muskeg? Probably not. But apparently we don't anticipate working there with artillery in any case.
So, my prescription for the Artillery stands: Medium Range Air Defence, Wheeled Self Propelled Howitzers, Wheeled MLRS launchers, Guided Missiles, Loitering Munitions and Remotely Piloted Aircraft.
And get rid of the M777s. Or dump them on the Reserves.