Post New Topic  
Edit Profile | Register | Search | FAQ | Forum Home
    next newest topic
» The War Diary   » The Combat and Supporting Arms   » Artillery   » M-109 replacement... (Page 2)

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic is comprised of pages: 1  2 
Author Topic: M-109 replacement...
Member # 74

Member Rated:

posted 17 April 2021 01:06      Profile for RCA     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was actually answering Gunner, but I again clarify the skills is in Fire command, control and coordination. Gun Drill is gun drill. And to clarify a seconfd pooint, tubed artillery is aslo an area weapon. The biggest bulk of our fire missions has been and will probaly continue to be area neutrilization (AN) while rockets can take out a grid square it is a one time shot, while tubed barty can pound an area (size depended on resourses) for as long as the ammo keeps coming. An rokets can't fire illumination. I wouldn't be against the highly automated self-propelled 155mm howitzer on a LAV, I'm a firm believer in the KISS principle. lanyard breaks, replace laynard.

And I don't care what anyone says, I've commanded detachments (using 105mm C1) that could put more rounds in the air in 3 min than any highly automated self-propelled 155mm howitzer on a LAV. Shoot and scoot only works if the infantry doesn't need you. When in DS we are tied to the infantry's needs (as it should be).


Posts: 198 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged
Member # 18

Member Rated:

posted 17 April 2021 19:24      Profile for Brock   Email Brock   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No offence but the C1 howitzer fires 105mm shells verses the 155mm which the LAV will fire, and also at considerably greater distance. The I highly doubt that the 105 shell can produce as effective saturation or point shelling as the 155 round. The C1 is also highly immobile, takes longer to get into action and requires more crew than the C1. The C1 also offers no protection to the crew from machine gun fire other than "duck."
This highly automated LAV 155 could deliver at least 6 rounds a minute and as many as 10. More than sufficient, and far better than the manual M109. At least we agree on one thing, the retention fo one form of tube artillery be 155mm howitzer or 120mm mortar is essential. Oh by the way the LAV 155 would be capable of all the things you have talked about. It is just hard to grasp that it can, because it is so much more advanced than our current artillery. Although, Canada made a good buy with the LG1 MkIIs, we just should have replaced all our light artillery with them.

Posts: 19 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged
Member # 209

Member Rated:

posted 18 April 2021 19:08      Profile for Nate   Email Nate   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As Yard Ape suggested, a combination of HIMARS and LAV 155/Ceasar would complement the rest of the brigade or battle groups equipment well. The M777 LWT howitzer has much greater capabilities than the M-109 series. I don't see how this would be a bad move. M-109 was designed to support heavy mobile formations. The M777 and HIMARS allows a more strategically mobile force to retain heavy firpower and tactical mobility. It won't degrade mass supporting fire capability, it will improve it.

The 120mm mortar system would be a good replacment for the Bison/M113 81mm mortar system. Again, the lighter formation is balanced with heavier firepower. These three systems in combination would give the mech brigades much improved DS capabilities and optimal coverage, as well as intratheatre mobility (all can be transported by C-130).



Posts: 15 | From: winnipeg | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yard Ape
Member # 158

Member Rated:

posted 19 April 2021 10:54      Profile for Yard Ape   Email Yard Ape   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What's the flight time of a missle fired from 50 km vs a 155 fired from 4 km? If I need fire support, I need it now.

155's can fire smart rounds. What is the cost difference between these and a smart missle? It would not make sense if targets became less expensive that the shots which destroy them.

Posts: 178 | From: Northern Ontario | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
Member # 191

Member Rated:

posted 19 April 2021 23:55      Profile for USMCMatt   Email USMCMatt   Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
While the images of the LAV III 155mm SPH do look tantalizing, I think that the Caesar would be superior.

First off, the cost of the Caesar would probably be far less than a LAV III mounted SPH.

Next, the actual gun on the Caesar has a superior range compared to that on the LAV.

The proposed gun on the LAV is a modified XM77 Light Weight Howitzer. This weapon is 39 calibre and has a max. range of 24, 700 metres with conventional rounds and 30, 000 with rocket assisted rounds.

The Caesar has a max. range of 42, 000 metres with conventional ammo.

The XM77 would have been a far superior choice of weapon for the 105mm howitzer equipped RCA units to have been equipped with rather than upgrading an overly obsolete system.

I personally think that a mix of XM77's, Caesars and HIMARS would be an ideal force for the CF's.

Here in the Marine Corps, the 14th Marine Regiment (4th Marine Divisions artillery regiment) is to have 2 battalions (Canadian regt. equiv) equipped with all the Marine Corps HIMARS. Incidentally the 14th Marines and 4th Marine Division are all reserve forces.

Given the nature of HIMARS employment as counter-battery fire for use against an opponent with significant artillery assets, such as Iraq during the Gulf War, or any future major conflict (in which reserve call-ups would be likely) it makes sense to have the HIMARS tasked to reserve units.

Training for a HIMARS role could be very easily done by reserve units. Gun Drills are Gun Drills...doesn't take very long to become too proficient or keep in practice...especially with technology making things easier.

Posts: 7 | From: Virginia, USA | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are ET
This topic is comprised of pages: 1  2 

Post New Topic   Close Topic    Move Topic      next newest topic
Jump To:

Contact Us | | Privacy Statement

� 2001 All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin BoardTM 6.1.0 Beta Release 2.0-pre3