Syrian Artillery

[Andreas]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

the Finnish approach is that the crucial part in modern CB survivability is the ability to disperse and scatter guns widely within a battery and still easily use previously unused firing positions. this requires modern artillery fire control systems but it does not require guns to be self-propelled. the idea is that wide gun dispersion, together with the capability to use any location without extensive prepartions, makes enemy counterbattery fires highly ineffective because you are giving him a great number of worthless targets to process & he can't concentrate his fire while you still can concentrate yours. enemy counterbattery fires are likely to result in just harassing fires that do not reduce operational capability of entire batteries.

Does the Finnish approach take into account full enemy air supremacy and the persence of MLRS in the enemy's arsenal?

What makes you think that only full batteries are worthwhile targets?

What makes you think that dispersal will help when the other guy can establish your gun co-ordinates before the rounds even land FAS on CB, and may not think that a single gun is a worthless target?

How does your artillery PUFO in a situation where the enemy has uncontested air supremacy?

I think the idea that this would work beyond "any gun, any time, but only once" in the given scenario is highly optimistic.

All the best

Andreas

[Peter Cairns]

Andreas,

Given that the Finnes border on Russia, I think they have probably considered the fact that they won't have air superiority and last time I looked Russia still had more MRL's than anyone in the world.

Peter.

[Andreas]

It depends not on who their neighbour is, but who they think they are going to fight.

All the best

Andreas

[Battlefront.com]

Against the US CB capability, the Finnish strategy would not work too well. The US has technology that can pinpoint a gun's firing position after only one or two rounds fired. The coordinates are fed directly to dedicated CB assets and return fire is sent. IIRC the elapsed time is measured in a few minutes from the time the enemy gun fires until rounds are falling on the gun. Unless the Finns can fire a useful number of rounds and get the gun limbered up and moved within 5-10 minutes it would likely be knocked out.

Steve

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Andreas,

CB radars aren't the kind of wonder weapons they are usually made to be. sure, they are a great asset when fighting an outdated enemy whose command system is broken, not to mention Hezbollah or Iraqi insurgent type enemies, but CB radars also have great limitations.

first of all, CB radars have limited up-time (so called radiation time) because they are very easy to detect, easy to destroy and are high value targets. they also have limited scanning sectors (e.g. 90 degrees) and ranges, require enemy fire to be aligned by the radar scanning sector (e.g. fire towards the radar), are somewhat prone to jamming (intended by enemy and uninteded by friendlies) and somewhat sensitive to environmental factors (like wind and rain). they also have limited capacity to detect, track and calculate simultaneous fires (especially on divergent angles, speeds and calibers) and are prone to system overload (even by as few as four simultaneous rounds). these types of parameters effect the probability to detect enemy fires and especially the ability to track detected fires and accurately calculate the location of enemy weapon system.

because the error margin of target location calculation (when the radar is running and scanning right sector and enemy fire is aligned on right angle and the radar is not overloaded by purposeful simultaneous firing) is easily 100 meters, CB fire against dispersed guns is not effective. it's not effective because it requires disproportionate use of resources, takes too long and the potential trade with corresponding enemy anti-counterbattery measures is bad.

MLRS makes the disparity between cost and effect worse. same for airstrikes, especially considering that Syrians have quite good short range AA capacity. bombing from 5000 meters leaves a lot to be desired regarding accuracy.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Against the US CB capability, the Finnish strategy would not work too well. The US has technology that can pinpoint a gun's firing position after only one or two rounds fired. The coordinates are fed directly to dedicated CB assets and return fire is sent. IIRC the elapsed time is measured in a few minutes from the time the enemy gun fires until rounds are falling on the gun. Unless the Finns can fire a useful number of rounds and get the gun limbered up and moved within 5-10 minutes it would likely be knocked out.

ok, you just got one of our D-30s. too bad, but by so doing we found out the location of your MLRS battery and our own MLRS battery just wasted yours. one D-30 for a MLRS battery, a fair trade don't you think?

[SSgt Viljuri]

urc wrote:

CB fire against dispersed guns is not effective. it's not effective because it requires disproportionate use of resources, takes too long and the potential trade with corresponding enemy anti-counterbattery measures is bad.

Maybe if we talk about WW3. In US/Allies vs. Third world nation scenarios, there's always options to take out individual guns, what ever their number.

See those OIF reels, they (US) literally take suspected tents out with most expensive weapon system available (like a million dollar advanced missile), even if footsoldiers could do the job for a bargain price...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

Andreas,

CB radars aren't the kind of wonder weapons they are usually made to be. sure, they are a great asset when fighting an outdated enemy whose command system is broken, not to mention Hezbollah or Iraqi insurgent type enemies, but CB radars also have great limitations.

You are right. They were total rubbish in GW I and OIF, and multiple MLRS got killed by the Iraqui MLRS using exactly that trick.

Oh, wait...

Somehow, between your idea of what the world is like, and the actual demonstration in action of what it is like, I find it not difficult to choose.

The US can commence CB fire before your first round has landed. It is accurate enough to take out your gun, simply by smothering your area - 100m here or there does not matter. The US forces are not the Finns, so money does not matter either, and if it costs a full rocket strike to take out your D-30, so be it. More jobs and profits for the homeland. US MLRS is pretty impervious against anything but direct hits from Syrian MLRS, which they can only achieve by rolling a row of sixes.

You were saying?

All the best

Andreas

[dan/california]

[same for airstrikes, especially considering that Syrians have quite good short range AA capacity. bombing from 5000 meters leaves a lot to be desired regarding accuracy.]

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by SSgt Viljuri:

Maybe if we talk about WW3. In US/Allies vs. Third world nation scenarios, there's always options to take out individual guns, what ever their number.

See those OIF reels, they (US) literally take suspected tents out with most expensive weapon system available (like a million dollar advanced missile), even if footsoldiers could do the job for a bargain price...

taking out individual guns is of course not just an option but a must. if they need to be taken one by one then that will be done. i am not suggesting that those bloody yanks will just give up if they can't nail down a battalion of arty at once. i am suggesting that there are countermeasures to CB radars that make counterbattery fires quite ineffective and make it possible for the defender to both sustain artillery operations and waste the invader's resources (which are not unlimited, especially for ground forces) which leads to prolonged conflict. there's a worlds of difference wether Syrian artillery evaporates in seconds or in days or weeks.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Andreas:

You are right. They were total rubbish in GW I and OIF, and multiple MLRS got killed by the Iraqui MLRS using exactly that trick.

Oh, wait...

did i somewhere claim such? if you think Iraqis had modern artillery fire control systems, and that they tried to use the type of dispersion tactics i spoke of, i feel compelled to inform you that they did not.

Somehow, between your idea of what the world is like, and the actual demonstration in action of what it is like, I find it not difficult to choose.

my idea of what the world is like - what the capabilities of US CB radars are, are entirely based on official US CB radar manuals. if you have a beef with any of the limitations i listed then please point it out so that we can clear your confusion.

The US can commence CB fire before your first round has landed.

they sure can, but won't in practice.

It is accurate enough to take out your gun, simply by smothering your area - 100m here or there does not matter.

of course it matters. ammo doesn't materialize from thin air.

The US forces are not the Finns, so money does not matter either, and if it costs a full rocket strike to take out your D-30, so be it.

sorry but it's not an issue of money, it's an issue of logistical capacity.

US MLRS is pretty impervious against anything but direct hits from Syrian MLRS, which they can only achieve by rolling a row of sixes.

but of course, those sand niggers wouldn't know how to use long range improved arty munitions.

You were saying?

there's a difference between media hype and reality.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by dan/california:

Their is lot to argue about with current U.S. tactics and equipment but the air force's ability to hit what it is aiming at very soon after being told what that is, is absolutely proven. The new small diameter bomb will greatly increase the number of targets that can be addressed per sortie as well. It doesn't matter if it from 50 ft or 50,000 ft. Only effective high altitude AA assets can address this and last I checked the Israeli's could sonic boom Assad's PRESDENTIAL PALACE at will.

i am not questioning the ability to hit specific targets, for that is indeed proven. i am questioning the ability get the correct targets. in both 1st Gulf War and Kosovo we heard how the airforce had just destroyed 90% of enemy land forces. in both cases the reality turned to be very different. perhaps things have changed but i am a bit skeptical about the accuracy (not the accuracy of weapon systems themselves but the accuracy of getting good target IDs).

[Peter Cairns]

There is a world of difference between a quality force like the Finns and the likes of Iraq, You only need to look at the name on most mobile phones to know the Finns know how to do communications and networking.

CB is effective but it is also highly dependant on radar and radars are vulnerable, they can be jammed and hit. A nation like Finland is more than capable of depolying a lightweight UAV or light vehicle based ASM that can find and hit CB radar.

They are also smart enough to line up six D-30's and get them to fire remotely towards the advancing opponent and to use the subsequent CB radar signatures to pin point them.

I doubt the Syrians could do it but the Finns certainly could. The other thing they are more than up to, is using cheap obsolete artillery particularly towed small calibre rockets to draw down huge volumes of CB fire, which would be better used elsewhere on real targets.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

I was taking particular exception to this statement by URC:

the Finnish approach is that the crucial part in modern CB survivability is the ability to disperse and scatter guns widely within a battery and still easily use previously unused firing positions.

Scattering the guns doesn't save them from an enemy that can pinpoint and eliminate individual guns with precision.

The other point URC brought up is also a problem:

ok, you just got one of our D-30s. too bad, but by so doing we found out the location of your MLRS battery and our own MLRS battery just wasted yours.

(presuming enemy air superiority) And as soon as that radar is turned on a HARM missile, or something similar, takes it out. The MLRS battery probably never gets to fire. And if it does, then it too is taken out.

This is the problem with lacking air cover. Air power has the ability to degrade entire systems, not just individual weapons. Dispersing them means little to an aircraft that can cover many miles in minutes and hit targets beyond his line of sight using data transmitted to it from other sources.

Obviously if all the artillery were clumpped into nice, tight batteries it would make it easier to eliminate, so no doubt dispersing them is better. No doubt too that this takes a level of technical skill that a military like Finland posesses and a military like Syria lacks. Terrain is also something Finland would have as a general advantage vs. Syria's largely exposed terrain.

The point of all this, though, is that Syria's massive artillery capability would not be very effective and would not last long in a full scale conflict. It would be degraded very quickly and then neutralized as a concern soon after. If there is one thing that the American military is proven very good at, it is destroying the enemy's ability to use its force as it wants to.

Steve

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Scattering the guns doesn't save them from an enemy that can pinpoint and eliminate individual guns with precision.

everything can be destroyed, it's only a question of how easily it can be done.

the methods i have listed go as far as outright prevent the whole radar based detection of firing guns, not to mention weakening enemy's ability to pinpoint gun locations. the whole counterbattery process becomes stressed, delayed and weakened.

when target location error creeps beyond 100 meters for single guns, CB fires become ineffective. instead of throwing salvos and salvos of MLRS fire at a general direction of the enemy, the choise is likely to be the use of airforce to hunt down the guns.

(presuming enemy air superiority) And as soon as that radar is turned on a HARM missile, or something similar, takes it out. The MLRS battery probably never gets to fire. And if it does, then it too is taken out.

exactly. the trick is that you don't need a HARM to take out a CB radar. all you need is to locate it and artillery will deal with it.

This is the problem with lacking air cover.

it is the problem with counterbattery radars. they are easy to detect and vulnerable and thus can be active only for short periods. their effective use against up-to-date enemy requires good planning.

The point of all this, though, is that Syria's massive artillery capability would not be very effective and would not last long in a full scale conflict. It would be degraded very quickly and then neutralized as a concern soon after.

i'm not impressed by the air arm and much of US counterbattery superiority could potentially be negated. everything indicates that Syrians are at least trying to learn from recent wars. i don't find it completely impossible that they could keep on using arty for couple of months what comes to the better units.

If there is one thing that the American military is proven very good at, it is destroying the enemy's ability to use its force as it wants to.

in direct combat yes.

[YankeeDog]

I see alot of talk about MLRS as a CB weapon here. . . MLRS is on its way out and it's replacement, GPS-guided HIMARS, is already in the field in Iraq.

One of HIMARS' primary roles is CB fire, and depending on the exact missile used its range is up to 70km. While accuracy is classified, most SWAGs put deviation well under 30m. There is also a larger relative of HIMARS in the late stages of testing, that puts two larger rockets on the same chassis, with a range of around 300km.

HIMARS uses the same chassis as the MLRS system, and so set up and redeployment time after firing is measured in seconds. This, combined with its very long range, makes it a very difficult target for any incoming CB fire.

So US ground forces don't necessarily need the Air Force to deal with enemy artillery; they have a very rapid response, long range, mobile and highly accurate CB system in the field. I don't see how any unarmored, non-motorized artillery deployment would survive for more than a few shots against this.

Add to this US air supremacy and the SDB just entering service now, and if I were any nation smaller than China or Russia strategizing against the US, I would put my money and effort somewhere other than trying to eke a few rounds out of my traditional gun artillery. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Battlefront.com]

URC,

everything can be destroyed, it's only a question of how easily it can be done.

Correct, but there is a huge difference between theoretical advantage and practical advantage. If I did something with my artillery that increased it's life expetancy 200%, that sounds pretty significant. But in practical terms that might mean that 50% more of my guns are overrun instead of destroyed. So in practical terms, it means nothing.

the methods i have listed go as far as outright prevent the whole radar based detection of firing guns, not to mention weakening enemy's ability to pinpoint gun locations. the whole counterbattery process becomes stressed, delayed and weakened.

No, it just presents more targets. It doesn't do anything to effectively reduce detection or counter fire.

when target location error creeps beyond 100 meters for single guns, CB fires become ineffective.

Right... but where have you read that US CB fire averages 100m margin of error? Even 100m margin of error isn't very good when engaging an entire battery.

exactly. the trick is that you don't need a HARM to take out a CB radar. all you need is to locate it and artillery will deal with it.

Right. And how are the Syrians supposed to locate it when every time they turn on any of their sensors they get hit from the air or from superior artillery fire? That's my point. You can't subtract out major parts of the equation as you have done.

i'm not impressed by the air arm and much of US counterbattery superiority could potentially be negated

Gee... I'd hate to see what it would take to impress you. Flying sharks with frick'n laer beams on their heads?

i don't find it completely impossible that they could keep on using arty for couple of months what comes to the better units.

The entire war wouldn't likely last more than a few weeks, so I find it completely impossible that they would last that long. The positions would be overrun and what wasn't overrun would be eliminated soon after firing. Again, I ask where in recent history can you show me examples evidence to suggest otherwise? 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars and Afghanistan are the examples we have that involve the US directly over the past 15 years. And yes, I am taking asymetrical responses into account big time. It's what I've been studying for the last 3 years, after all

in direct combat yes.

No matter how wide spread Syrian artillery may be, it is still a conventional weapon. Therefore, it will always be involved in direct combat. Therefore, lacking air cover, good FDC, sound leadership, and propper planning well ahead of time... there is no evidence to suggest they would have much of a meaningful impact on a conventional confrontation with Western forces, in particular the US.

Steve

[flamingknives]

YankeeDog

HIMARS is a launcher and is not remotely based on the old M270 MLRS chassis. The only commonality is that both can load and fire from the 6 round rocket pod container.

The GPS-guided rocket is the GMLRS rocket, which can be fired from either the M270 or the HIMARS (the M270 needs a few upgrades though) It's the same size as a regular 227mm rocket, so you get six per RPC, but carries a 200lb unitary warhead. It's frequently used in Iraq for dealing with individual buildings.

Also fitting into an RPC, there are the ATACMS missiles, which have the 300km range. These are substantially bigger, so you only get one per RPC.

Regular MLRS are quite short ranged - about 30kms - so are outranged by quite a few OPFOR weapons systems, especially if the OPFOR are firing at the front line.

Finally, MLRS really aren't that well armoured.

[YankeeDog]

Thanks for correcting my inaccuracies.

Point remains: As the website you reference says, the GMLRS, with a 70km range and GPS guided accuracy, is deployed to Iraq now. In any hypothetical future conflict, I believe a weapon like this would absolutely shred any fixed enemy artillery positions, if the USAF hadn't gotten to it already.

There is also a new rocket in testing that can fire of the HIMARS platform, two to an RPC. So it's between the size of the GMLRS and the ATACMS. Future Weapons did a segment on it, with extesnsive footage of a a live fire test at Los Alamos. Unfortunately, my Google-fu isn't working for me, and I can't find the exact designation for this sytem.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself here. In order to detect the active status of a TPQ36/37 Firefinder radar, the Syrians don't have to turn on anything which really radiates, merely tune in a receiver operating on the same frequency band, and generate a series of DF cuts to derive location from either a cooperative network or by repositioning the intercept vehicle. Unless you're going to argue that the U.S. has the ability to locate passive receivers via URE (unintentional radiation of emissions), then I suspect you may've gotten this capability confused

with the use of CM/CB radar, such as BIG FRED on the MTLB chassis.

Regards,

John Kettler

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Correct, but there is a huge difference between theoretical advantage and practical advantage. If I did something with my artillery that increased it's life expetancy 200%, that sounds pretty significant. But in practical terms that might mean that 50% more of my guns are overrun instead of destroyed. So in practical terms, it means nothing.

that's of course true IF the attacker is able to overrun defender's artillery positions. that's one huge if.

No, it just presents more targets. It doesn't do anything to effectively reduce detection or counter fire.

nah, modern FCS technologies allow dispersal tactics to reduce both CB fire effectiveness and QB radar locating probabilities & accuracies drastically. this is not something i am just making up, anyone can check out the field manuals relevant to the subject. CB radar systems have inherent weaknesses, some of which are built in by design.

Right... but where have you read that US CB fire averages 100m margin of error? Even 100m margin of error isn't very good when engaging an entire battery.

depending on radar type and various parameters the typical error margin is around half a percentage of the range to target location. it tends to be around 70 meters for the typical planned range of most radars.

if enemy has a traditional battery lineup you can plot out the likely battery position from the individual target locations quite accurately. most CB radar systems do this automatically.

you then just pass the calculated location to your MLRS battery which will neutralize the battery with a couple of rockets.

it's an impressive system.

the problem is, this process has dramatical weaknesses against enemy equipped for dispersal tactics. error margins creep up, locating probabilities sink and target acquiring becomes a slow process. CB fires become just harrassing fires.

Right. And how are the Syrians supposed to locate it when every time they turn on any of their sensors they get hit from the air or from superior artillery fire? That's my point. You can't subtract out major parts of the equation as you have done.

you are thinking too much like a super power, you need to get to the state of mind of a pathetic marginal nation.

it doesn't matter that Syrians lose their radar. they are doing a conscious trade. Syrian radar for American MLRS battery. of course Syrians have just a handful of radars, but since Americans don't know how few exactly, they will change CB procedures instead of betting they won't lose another MLRS battery.

Gee... I'd hate to see what it would take to impress you. Flying sharks with frick'n laer beams on their heads?

Marines impress me. i wouldn't mind facing US airforce but i would hate having to face the Marines.

The entire war wouldn't likely last more than a few weeks, so I find it completely impossible that they would last that long. The positions would be overrun and what wasn't overrun would be eliminated soon after firing.

yes, Syrians need to have means to stall and stop enemy operations to keep their artillery from being overrun.

Again, I ask where in recent history can you show me examples evidence to suggest otherwise? 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars and Afghanistan are the examples we have that involve the US directly over the past 15 years. And yes, I am taking asymetrical responses into account big time. It's what I've been studying for the last 3 years, after all

yes, there are practically no examples of real modern asymmetrical warfare between two states. the Israeli conflict was interesting but very limited and one sided.

No matter how wide spread Syrian artillery may be, it is still a conventional weapon. Therefore, it will always be involved in direct combat. Therefore, lacking air cover, good FDC, sound leadership, and propper planning well ahead of time... there is no evidence to suggest they would have much of a meaningful impact on a conventional confrontation with Western forces, in particular the US.

i don't see why they couldn't have proper planning and leadership. in my opinion they have real possibilities to make it hard to take them out. do i personally believe they would be up to it? not really, but it's possible.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Point remains: As the website you reference says, the GMLRS, with a 70km range and GPS guided accuracy, is deployed to Iraq now. In any hypothetical future conflict, I believe a weapon like this would absolutely shred any fixed enemy artillery positions, if the USAF hadn't gotten to it already.

not having accurate weapons is not the problem. the problem is having accurate targets for those weapons.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

In order to detect the active status of a TPQ36/37 Firefinder radar, the Syrians don't have to turn on anything which really radiates, merely tune in a receiver operating on the same frequency band, and generate a series of DF cuts to derive location from either a cooperative network or by repositioning the intercept vehicle. Unless you're going to argue that the U.S. has the ability to locate passive receivers via URE (unintentional radiation of emissions), then I suspect you may've gotten this capability confused

with the use of CM/CB radar, such as BIG FRED on the MTLB chassis.

i believe he means that Syrians would need to turn on their own CB radar in order to find out the location of US MLRS battery.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

ok, here's a field manual dealing with the basics of US CB radar usage:

the link

read thru chapter 4. don't get too bored towards the end: pay attention to concepts like location averaging and auto censoring.

chapter 5 is good for browsing thru to get the hang of basic usage tactics.

check also appendix A (check Table A-2. Sensor Characteristic for target location errors for various sensors) and E.

i don't know if that site allows direct linking of images, but here are some images that will quickly give the basic idea of CB radar usage:

[MartinEden]

This is some funny stuff. I suspect a war between Syria and the U.S. would be much more like Desert Storm than Iraqi Freedon, which would mean WEEKS of Air Strikes and Cruise Missle strikes before anything else. To expect the Syrian Army to have any command and control after that is quite silly.