New Zealand Army
- Thread starter Whiskyjack
- Start date
-
- Tags
- army artilery gunner new zealand sas
Aging Artilery Replacement for NZ
With the end life fast approaching for the M105 feild gun in service with the New Zealand army, What artilery piece would suit such a small Landforce?
Im not an expert on the subject, but an apparant move from 105mm to 155mm seems to be occuring amoungst the land forces of today
With the end life fast approaching for the M105 feild gun in service with the New Zealand army, What artilery piece would suit such a small Landforce?
Im not an expert on the subject, but an apparant move from 105mm to 155mm seems to be occuring amoungst the land forces of today
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
There's more to a comparison than a straight "A can fire n rockets with x kg of explosive each, while B can fire one shell with y kg of explosive". What is the sustained rate of fire? What is the logistics burden? What if you don't want to put 90 kg of HE on one target?
Last edited:
osage_18
New Member
M119
I apologize if someone else has mentioned this Gun already, but this would NOT affect the current ammunition stockpile and would be easy to re-learn for the crews...does anyone know how similar the 105 vs. 119 crew drill are? It's been a while since I've been down on the gunline
I apologize if someone else has mentioned this Gun already, but this would NOT affect the current ammunition stockpile and would be easy to re-learn for the crews...does anyone know how similar the 105 vs. 119 crew drill are? It's been a while since I've been down on the gunline
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
All that is very interesting, but what is the cost of an M31 rocket compared to a 155mm artillery shell and charge? Then factor in the increased cost of 120mm mortar ammunition, as opposed to 81mm ammunition...
I'm thinking the difference is massive...
The longest ranged 155mm ammunition natures match rocket artillery ranges, for most purposes.
As to helo support, NZ has that anyway and not all helos are engaged in troop transport all the time.
As to trucks, NZ has plenty of them already. An M777 (for example) isn't going to require a different gun tractor to an L-118/9 I wouldn't expect.
When you factor in cost, both initial acquisition and through life support, I don't believe an MLRS or HIMARS battery could match an M-777A2 battery for cost effectiveness.
Firepower, yes.
Sustainability and cost?
Dubious.
Yes, a gun tractor is required for a towed gun. But in "dire" circumstances a gun tractor can carry a crew AND a quantity of ammunition. A rocket based system cannot do this, beyond it's initial loadout.
Some vehicles such as the Portee M-777 do so on a regular basis and you get the benefits of a self propelled gun and a lightweight towed gun in the same vehicle...
The old argument about rockets v artillery is exactly that. I don't intend to argue it, but I don't think rockets are a realistic replacement for tube artillery and neither do most Army's around the world.
For a force that is only ever likely to operate a limited number of fire support assets, flexibility is the key and I think tube artillery is more flexible than rocket artilley.
Particularly now that Excalibur and other PGMs, "accurate" fusing systems, long ranged munitions and new ammunition natures such as DPICM are available.
I don't suggest that M777A2 IS necessarily THE best replacement for the L-118/9 gun system, but it seems hard to go past...
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
I think we had this dicsussion some time ago in athread about MLRS systems and the probability to replace traditional artillery completely with MLRS systems.
IMO it is just not feasible and MLRS systems can always just add some capabilities to the artillery branch of a country.
There are alot of fire missions for which MLRSs are just not suited for, not even with modern rockets, be it blinding fire, continues pounding, alot of different small firemissions in a short timeframe, illum, smoke, etc.
And that operating some self propelled MLRS is cheaper than operating some artillery + trucks is IMHO doubtfull. Operating normal trucks to tow the artillery is as cheap as it gets, especially when the trucks already exist. Maintenance for the guns also shouldn't be that big. They are just towed guns after all.
IMO it is just not feasible and MLRS systems can always just add some capabilities to the artillery branch of a country.
There are alot of fire missions for which MLRSs are just not suited for, not even with modern rockets, be it blinding fire, continues pounding, alot of different small firemissions in a short timeframe, illum, smoke, etc.
And that operating some self propelled MLRS is cheaper than operating some artillery + trucks is IMHO doubtfull. Operating normal trucks to tow the artillery is as cheap as it gets, especially when the trucks already exist. Maintenance for the guns also shouldn't be that big. They are just towed guns after all.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
But with just 120mm mortars as additional fire support the MLRS system has to do many of the fire missions tube artillery does normally because the 120mm mortars just don't have the range.
But I have to give credit to you as I forgot that the mortars might be self propelled and would be able to follow the mech forces.
But I have to give credit to you as I forgot that the mortars might be self propelled and would be able to follow the mech forces.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted.
Deleted.
Last edited:
You know this is becoming complicated for NZ Army's needs.
Unless it is having a shift change in its doctrine from what it currently uses its artilery for then something along similar lines but new is what is needed. All this talk about mortars is academic if they just refurbish/upgrade what they currently use, which I could see them doing for a short term solution.
Unless it is having a shift change in its doctrine from what it currently uses its artilery for then something along similar lines but new is what is needed. All this talk about mortars is academic if they just refurbish/upgrade what they currently use, which I could see them doing for a short term solution.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
If I had control of the NZ Land Defence Budget I would opt for an AMOS type turret comprising twin barrel 120 mm mortars coupled to an automatic ammunition handling and target engagement system. This set-up can be fitted to the same variant of LAV's currently in service with the NZ military. The AMOS already utilises ammunition widely available in the market place and is also compatible with new and planned Precision Guided Mortar Munitions.
Being fully automated the AMOS/LAV can shoot and then move off quicky to avoid counter battery fire. The system can also keep up with the infantry LAV's and not cause any delays in the advance (or god-forbid retreat) with prolonged setting and packing-up times after and prior to each engagement.
Adopting an AMOS / LAV combination means the NZ army will end up with excellent fire support without having to greatly increase the logistics and training burden. I'm sure the system comes with simulation software to aid training without having to live-fire on a regular basis.
Being fully automated the AMOS/LAV can shoot and then move off quicky to avoid counter battery fire. The system can also keep up with the infantry LAV's and not cause any delays in the advance (or god-forbid retreat) with prolonged setting and packing-up times after and prior to each engagement.
Adopting an AMOS / LAV combination means the NZ army will end up with excellent fire support without having to greatly increase the logistics and training burden. I'm sure the system comes with simulation software to aid training without having to live-fire on a regular basis.
Last edited: