Paladin and the Pzh-2000
- Thread starter shimmy
- Start date
Mortars are still very usefull.
They even got more usefull these days.
New systems like AMOS and new ammo gives integrated mortar support better capabilities than ever before.
Mortars when mounted on vehicles (tracked or wheeled) are very good at giving direct fire support for mech inf/armor btls.
The thing is that integrated mortars give the btn commander fire support when needed while the brigade or division SPHs are not ready fast enough or have not enough capacities. Laying a smoke screen right suddenly when you need it is not that easy when you have to rely on the brigade artillery btn.
And with a system like double AMOS on CV90 you have a vehicle which is able to follow the mech units, has a high rate of fire, can defend itself, gives direct fire support when needed and is very versatile with the new ammo.
-----
Paladin <---> PzH2000
The PzH2000 has a bigger rate of fire, longer range, is faster, is faster during "shoot and scoot", has ERA on top, and has a bigger movement range.
With the ADLER network and by working together with the new COBRA fire finder radar it is not behind the new datalink system in the Paladin if not better.
As for accuracy I don't really know how accurate Paladin is (Somebody has some data?). For PzH2000 it is 40m at 40km which is quite good.
Both have night fighting capabilities, intependent commander periscopes and are NBC protected.
As for ammo, theoretically both can use the same ammo so a special ammo can always be bought by the customer but the PzH2000 gets more out of modern RAP ammo.
The Bundeswehr today uses HE (impact and above earth detonation), bomblet, RAP, smoke and SMart.
What kind of ammo is in service for the Paladin?
They even got more usefull these days.
New systems like AMOS and new ammo gives integrated mortar support better capabilities than ever before.
Mortars when mounted on vehicles (tracked or wheeled) are very good at giving direct fire support for mech inf/armor btls.
The thing is that integrated mortars give the btn commander fire support when needed while the brigade or division SPHs are not ready fast enough or have not enough capacities. Laying a smoke screen right suddenly when you need it is not that easy when you have to rely on the brigade artillery btn.
And with a system like double AMOS on CV90 you have a vehicle which is able to follow the mech units, has a high rate of fire, can defend itself, gives direct fire support when needed and is very versatile with the new ammo.
-----
Paladin <---> PzH2000
The PzH2000 has a bigger rate of fire, longer range, is faster, is faster during "shoot and scoot", has ERA on top, and has a bigger movement range.
With the ADLER network and by working together with the new COBRA fire finder radar it is not behind the new datalink system in the Paladin if not better.
As for accuracy I don't really know how accurate Paladin is (Somebody has some data?). For PzH2000 it is 40m at 40km which is quite good.
Both have night fighting capabilities, intependent commander periscopes and are NBC protected.
As for ammo, theoretically both can use the same ammo so a special ammo can always be bought by the customer but the PzH2000 gets more out of modern RAP ammo.
The Bundeswehr today uses HE (impact and above earth detonation), bomblet, RAP, smoke and SMart.
What kind of ammo is in service for the Paladin?
Paladin is accurate with in 50 meters, not bad for a system that has been around the block as long as it has. As far as different projectiles goes these are some of the ones that are in inventory :
HE - ground impact or air burst.
ICM - Improved Conventional munition.
RAAMS - Remote anti armor mine system.
ADAM - Area denial artillery munition.
HERA - High explosive rocket assist.
Smoke and illumination.
High explosive grenade.
Copperhead.
You won't get the range of a 52 barrel (PzH2000) out of a 39 barrel (M777, NLOS-C, M109). Base-bleed is crap - better go for rockets if you need that kind of range. And the AMOS mortar on the CV90 is a very interesting system (as already mentioned).
There is a system made by Krauss-Maffei-Wegmann of Germany (the ones who build PzH2000), the AGM, placing the PzH2000 turret on a MLRS/Bradley chassis. Comes at around 23 tons. Could use a cut-down CV90 as well, I guess. Very competitive against the 23 barrel M109 versions.
And for M109 vs PzH2000: You just can't compare two systems that are 50 years apart in their design. One is a manual system, the other highly automated.
There is a system made by Krauss-Maffei-Wegmann of Germany (the ones who build PzH2000), the AGM, placing the PzH2000 turret on a MLRS/Bradley chassis. Comes at around 23 tons. Could use a cut-down CV90 as well, I guess. Very competitive against the 23 barrel M109 versions.
And for M109 vs PzH2000: You just can't compare two systems that are 50 years apart in their design. One is a manual system, the other highly automated.
Paladin does have a automatic fire control system, has been uparmored and given a better suspension and automtive power, but the artillery systems like PZH2000 and AS90 are better systems. The UAE and Swiss have gone to a 47 length barrel for their M109 systems because of range issues.
Ah, I forgot illumination rounds in service.
We leave the mine laying role completely to the MLRS.
Base bleed ammo is nice to have if your fire finder network tracks an enemy battery right outside your normal range.
Maybe there is not a MLRS battery available to saturate the area but a SPH battery.
But I agree that normal deep area fighting should be done by MLRS.
I really find the automatic loading system of the PzH interesting. You don't put the rounds manually into the magazine but onto a rail and the computer organises the rounds so that all the time all kinds of ammo are available.
What kind of loading system does Paladin uses?
Is it also completely automated or do you have to fill the magazines manually?
We leave the mine laying role completely to the MLRS.
Base bleed ammo is nice to have if your fire finder network tracks an enemy battery right outside your normal range.
Maybe there is not a MLRS battery available to saturate the area but a SPH battery.
But I agree that normal deep area fighting should be done by MLRS.
I really find the automatic loading system of the PzH interesting. You don't put the rounds manually into the magazine but onto a rail and the computer organises the rounds so that all the time all kinds of ammo are available.
What kind of loading system does Paladin uses?
Is it also completely automated or do you have to fill the magazines manually?
Nope - they still have to manually load it.Ah, I forgot illumination rounds in service.
We leave the mine laying role completely to the MLRS.
Base bleed ammo is nice to have if your fire finder network tracks an enemy battery right outside your normal range.
Maybe there is not a MLRS battery available to saturate the area but a SPH battery.
But I agree that normal deep area fighting should be done by MLRS.
I really find the automatic loading system of the PzH interesting. You don't put the rounds manually into the magazine but onto a rail and the computer organises the rounds so that all the time all kinds of ammo are available.
What kind of loading system does Paladin uses?
Is it also completely automated or do you have to fill the magazines manually?
"Base-bleed is crap"? On what basis do you make that claim? Base-bleed increases range without the inherent ballistic problems that rockets suffer from. Nor is any payload effectively sacrificed which is what happens if a RAP is used.
Precision varies with elevation, it's at least twice as expensive, but most of all I don't think that it's the right tool. Taking into account that artillery today overwhelmingly fires submunition projectiles. I think that subammo-dispenser-rockets and helicopters/fighterbombers are a better joice for such ranges. Plus why not just move your firing base? What kind of target would require continous pounding that far out?
On the modern battlefield you will not have any choice but to move your artillery around if you are fighting a sizable enemy that has the potential of producing counter battery fire, there is no such thing as a fixed firing base, after you unleash a couple of barrages you beat feet to get out of there or you will die. Having extended range projectiles can give you a advantage of not having your guns in range of enemy guns, plus it is excellant
for cutting off retreats or taking out Command and Control units. Todays modern battlefield moves very rapidly and the majority of battle will be decided in a matter of hours instead of days.
In fact SPHs with modern fire control networks do not even work in battery groups but as individual lonely vehicles when facing an enemy with counter fire capabilties.
The network and modern navigation and ballistic computers enable them to drive around lonely and get into fire position as soon as they get the firing data (PzH within 30 sec) and attack a target simultaniously even when the battery is scattered over a big area.
This makes it even more difficult for the enemy to react with usefull counterfire.
PS: This video shows good how the autoloader of the PzH2000 works.
A little bit heroic music as always on youtube but ok.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdptgOX_9SA&mode=related&search=
The network and modern navigation and ballistic computers enable them to drive around lonely and get into fire position as soon as they get the firing data (PzH within 30 sec) and attack a target simultaniously even when the battery is scattered over a big area.
This makes it even more difficult for the enemy to react with usefull counterfire.
PS: This video shows good how the autoloader of the PzH2000 works.
A little bit heroic music as always on youtube but ok.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdptgOX_9SA&mode=related&search=
Last edited:
Re the three previous posts:
Continous firing - if you don't plan to do that use a system like MLRS and get a kill with a single salvo. E.g. what is the use of having a battery firing at different elevations/loads to have the shells drop on target simultanously? Use MLRS!
Moving after firing a few shots - I'm aware of modern artillery tactics. Although in the last couple of colonial wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) the enemy had no means for counter fire and the firing base concept was used again.
High value targets "emerging out there" - how do you locate those targets usually? From the air. And as such targets are mobile, you don't use artillery against them, you use aerial assets.
I have a problem seeing what 155mm artillery is for, if not harassing fire, continous pounding of a square on the map. Even for area denial you better use mines.
Continous firing - if you don't plan to do that use a system like MLRS and get a kill with a single salvo. E.g. what is the use of having a battery firing at different elevations/loads to have the shells drop on target simultanously? Use MLRS!
Moving after firing a few shots - I'm aware of modern artillery tactics. Although in the last couple of colonial wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) the enemy had no means for counter fire and the firing base concept was used again.
High value targets "emerging out there" - how do you locate those targets usually? From the air. And as such targets are mobile, you don't use artillery against them, you use aerial assets.
I have a problem seeing what 155mm artillery is for, if not harassing fire, continous pounding of a square on the map. Even for area denial you better use mines.
MLRS are just overmatched for many situations.
I don't want to call in blinding fire (mix of smoke and HE for example) to cover my left flank while advancing and they try to do this with one MLRS salvo.
Or I want to pound the expected enemy platoon in front of me. There a MLRS is also overmatched. And for this an artillery battery would use TOT to get as much of the bastards as possible with the first volley.
Or advancing under own arty cover. Arty pounds onto a position in front of you, then the fire moves forward and you follow. Do this with a MLRS.
And a MLRS is useless after one salvo while SPHs attack one target with blinding fire, than switch to one target with SMArt, than switch to one with bomblet,...
Denying territory to the enemy always with mines is also not a good idea if you wantto use this terrain later.
MLRS is usefull against massed formations, HQ positions, massed (static) artillery positions, etc.
A MLRS can also not defend itself in the way a SPH can. During OIF a battery of Paladin killed some Iraqi tanks which suddenly appeared with direct fire. Do this with a MLRS.
As for shoot and scoot tactics. It is right that in Iraq and A-stan there was no need for these tactics. But you cannot always expect the enemy to be that low tech.
Just as an example you try to go against a country with a countable counterfire capability and the weather denies you the use of overhelming airpower. (Which is not even always there if the weather is good).
There you would love your ability to fire and leave the area fast.
Having a foursome of fire support with MLRS, SPHs, mortars and air support covers every aspect of fire support you might need.
I don't want to call in blinding fire (mix of smoke and HE for example) to cover my left flank while advancing and they try to do this with one MLRS salvo.
Or I want to pound the expected enemy platoon in front of me. There a MLRS is also overmatched. And for this an artillery battery would use TOT to get as much of the bastards as possible with the first volley.
Or advancing under own arty cover. Arty pounds onto a position in front of you, then the fire moves forward and you follow. Do this with a MLRS.
And a MLRS is useless after one salvo while SPHs attack one target with blinding fire, than switch to one target with SMArt, than switch to one with bomblet,...
Denying territory to the enemy always with mines is also not a good idea if you wantto use this terrain later.
MLRS is usefull against massed formations, HQ positions, massed (static) artillery positions, etc.
A MLRS can also not defend itself in the way a SPH can. During OIF a battery of Paladin killed some Iraqi tanks which suddenly appeared with direct fire. Do this with a MLRS.
As for shoot and scoot tactics. It is right that in Iraq and A-stan there was no need for these tactics. But you cannot always expect the enemy to be that low tech.
Just as an example you try to go against a country with a countable counterfire capability and the weather denies you the use of overhelming airpower. (Which is not even always there if the weather is good).
There you would love your ability to fire and leave the area fast.
Having a foursome of fire support with MLRS, SPHs, mortars and air support covers every aspect of fire support you might need.
Well said Waylander.
Again, there appears to be an implied assumption in your comment that your units will be faced with only one sort of situation and that they need only one sort of round/weapon to counter it. I'd have thought it was obvious that base-bleed isn't the sole solution to every situation but it does have considerable value because you don't have to call up a different unit in order to gain longer range fire support. In this day-and-age of "assymetric warfare" you units may well be dispersed and isolated. The use of rockets and in particular, non-unitary ammunition types might be precluded by concerns of danger-close considerations and "collateral damage" and air support has been tasked with other targets, hours away, yet your subunits still need fire support. Thats where you long range artillery comes into play. While base-bleed accuracy might be lower than normal artillery rounds, its still better than rockets and its available immediately. Being able to extend the range of your fire-support bases beyond what they normally could achieve, would be of considerable value.
If we're talking about conventional warfare, then the use of base-bleed means again that extended range fire support is available immediately. Again, its more accurate than rockets and the use of unitary HE might be more appropriate than the use of a non-unitary rocket warhead.
Personally, I'd always much rather call on my own artillery support, either integral or attached, rather than have to call upon either rocket units or even worse, air, when I need it. At least if they stuff up, I can then kick their arses personally, which I can't do if its another unit or a bunch of bomb-happy flyboys whooshing past at 10,000 feet.
Well, apart from the fact that mines have been by-and-large outlawed, they tie down your own units protecting the minefield. You simply cannot afford to provide the enemy insurgents with a valuable source of IEDs like a minefield - a lesson which was learnt the hard way in Vietnam and Afghanistan (the first time 'round). Therefore you must always patrol and cover minefields.
see, MLRS systems need time to reload and their rounds are much more expensive than an artillery round. you can keep pounding the enemy position with artilery for hours but with MLRS I don't see that coming without extensive support.
MLRS are basically used to clear an area with a salvo or two, but its hard to fire continually at enemy position. and MLRS rounds can be seen from rather far away from the exhaust and easier to locate. Try to trace a 155mm without a milliliter radar.