M777 fielded with Stryker brigades

[flamingknives]

Ballistic computers fit on towed guns too, these days.

[offtaskagain]

Yep, and the M777 is one of those guns.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Beastttt:

I'd have to say if you don't have to worry about counter battery fire then they are just as good as sp arty

that is the only advantage I see that sp has over towed

In some situations, SP artillery can also function as direct fire infantry support weapons. See German Hummels and Wespe's in WW2.

How often such situations occur in today's battlefield, I don't know... but nonetheless it is the other advantage.

[cassh]

Sergei said

In some situations, SP artillery can also function as direct fire infantry support weapons. See German Hummels and Wespe's in WW2.

Just some drunken thoughts...

Unlikely use presently; although used this way ww2. Currently unless a battery position is overrun or the guns are stationed in a static FB with LOS to an opportunity target i would imagine few commanders would dream of bringing up precious 155 SP arty for direct fire support - not saying couldn't happen - but likelihood bloody rare to non-existent in modern army doctrine as they'd be too vulnerable to LAWs and ATGMs and are rare and expensive platforms. Any commander losing arty on the FEBA has cocked-up big time...

[luderbamsen]

Erm, aren't we getting into a discusson of towed or SP arty?

That certainly wasn't my premise. Both types have their pro's and cons. Obviously, light towed guns are very useful for light, airmobile forces while SP guns have advantages for heavy mechanised units.

My question was if towed arty was the right solution for a Stryker brigade? Not so much in the short term (I'm not sure there is an off-the-shelf alternative that matches the Stryker) but rather in the longer term: Something that that can match the mobility and survivability of the Stryker.

Respectfully

luderbamsen

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by luderbamsen:

Something that that can match the mobility and survivability of the Stryker.

(j/k)

[MikeyD]

...and from the look of it, about as liable to tip over in a turn, too!

About towed versus SP artillery for Stryker Brigade, when the brigade was initially formed I believe all of their mortar vehicles were strictly for carrying. No on-board firing at all. Not until introduction of the M1129 B model (I think). I've seen photos of SP artillery Strykers under test. I don't know if they got funded, though. Funny thing, from the photos I can't recall seeing any provision for direct-fire!

:confused:

[ November 06, 2006, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by cassh:

Unlikely use presently; although used this way ww2. Currently unless a battery position is overrun or the guns are stationed in a static FB with LOS to an opportunity target i would imagine few commanders would dream of bringing up precious 155 SP arty for direct fire support - not saying couldn't happen - but likelihood bloody rare to non-existent in modern army doctrine as they'd be too vulnerable to LAWs and ATGMs and are rare and expensive platforms. Any commander losing arty on the FEBA has cocked-up big time...

Which is precisely why I said:

How often such situations occur in today's battlefield, I don't know... but nonetheless it is the other advantage.

Actually, if you don't mind, I like my text so much that I will quote it again:

How often such situations occur in today's battlefield, I don't know... but nonetheless it is the other advantage.

There! The point I was trying to make is, "it's not a particularly useful advantage, but still it IS the other advantage." Or, in other words:

How often such situations occur in today's battlefield, I don't know... but nonetheless it is the other advantage.

P.S. SPG are vulnerable to infantry antitank weapons, but then again, so are Stryker's.

[akd]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

...and from the look of it, about as liable to tip over in a turn, too!

About towed versus SP artillery for Stryker Brigade, when the brigade was initially formed I believe all of their mortar vehicles were strictly for carrying. No on-board firing at all. Not until introduction of the M1129 B model (I think). I've seen photos of SP artillery Strykers under test. I don't know if they got funded, though. Funny thing, from the photos I can't recall seeing any provision for direct-fire!

:confused:

I don't believe a SP artillery system is planned for the Stryker family. It is, however, planned for the whole modular FCS thing, under the development designation of the "FCS NLOS-C."

[cassh]

Sergei i think you deploying wit is about as likely... flame away

[cassh]

btw why does the FCS NLOS-C bod above look like a 1940's tommy - is an old skool look coming back in?

[akd]

Originally posted by cassh:

btw why does the FCS NLOS-C bod above look like a 1940's tommy - is an old skool look coming back in?

The illustration is only meant to show the concept of the whole program. We don't know what it will actually look like, but it is supposed be tracked and "modular" (i.e. sharing a common chassis).

Another piece of concept art from the Army:

Cannon demonstration vehicle:

All sorts of FCS nonsense here:

http://www.army.mil/fcs/

[ November 06, 2006, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: akd ]

[RMC]

Originally posted by akd:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by cassh:

btw why does the FCS NLOS-C bod above look like a 1940's tommy - is an old skool look coming back in?

The illustration is only meant to show the concept of the whole program. We don't know what it will actually look like, but it is supposed be tracked and "modular" (i.e. sharing a common chassis).

</font>

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by luderbamsen:

Erm, aren't we getting into a discusson of towed or SP arty?

That certainly wasn't my premise. Both types have their pro's and cons. Obviously, light towed guns are very useful for light, airmobile forces while SP guns have advantages for heavy mechanised units.

My question was if towed arty was the right solution for a Stryker brigade? Not so much in the short term (I'm not sure there is an off-the-shelf alternative that matches the Stryker) but rather in the longer term: Something that that can match the mobility and survivability of the Stryker.

Respectfully

luderbamsen

Towed is about 1/20th of the cost

That is a plenty good enough reason why it should be perferred if the fits the needs of the unit

[akd]

Originally posted by RMC:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by akd:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by cassh:

btw why does the FCS NLOS-C bod above look like a 1940's tommy - is an old skool look coming back in?

The illustration is only meant to show the concept of the whole program. We don't know what it will actually look like, but it is supposed be tracked and "modular" (i.e. sharing a common chassis).

</font>

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

Towed is about 1/20th of the cost

That is a plenty good enough reason why it should be perferred if the fits the needs of the unit

[MikeyD]

I don't know how fire support works in Iraq these days. it would seem in a static 'occupation' war the old Vietnam era firebase concept would still be pretty good. Stake out a defensible position that can dominate a given area. Get all your firing coordinates worked out ahead of time. Then sit and wait for any unit within a 10km radius to call in for fire support. Towed long-range howitzers air-lifted into a fortified position would be ideal.