Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.

[Garrand]

its surprising it took this long for something like this to be developed. But I guess that M113 family was "good enough" for long enough...

Now we just need a model kit of it...

Damon.

[Matti]

its surprising it took this long for something like this to be developed. But I guess that M113 family was "good enough" for long enough...

USA had plenty of armoured troop carriers in between: Bradley, Humvee (some of them anyway), Stryker, and something called MRAP. Anything else?

[ANS Kamas P81]

As a former firing battery commander, battalion and regimental operations officer I am wrestling with my response. Please wait.

I defer to your knowledge and experience; my comparison was that the artillery isn't out there looking for targets and potentially running across surprises with just what's loaded but is more of an on-call service.  And speaking purely in a perfect-world setting as well, of course.

[Cannonshop]

OK, let's get some AFVs back in the AFV thread.




The Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) will begin low-rate initial production this month.

The Bradley based vehicle will be produced in 5 variants to replace the US Army's M113 family.

ah, so some decades after the The Pentagon Wars the Bradley returns to its original roots?

[HobbesHurlbut]

ah, so some decades after the The Pentagon Wars the Bradley returns to its original roots?

The Circle is at last completed.

[Kidd]

Interesting.

There will be ~1,000 medical variants, ~1,000 command post variants, ~500 APCs and ~400 mortar carriers.

[Fat Guy]

Two different Medical variants.

Here's the family photo:

[glitterboy2098]

last i'd heard this vehicle family wasn't being pursued. when did they finally decide to adopt it?

[CDAT]

USA had plenty of armoured troop carriers in between: Bradley, Humvee (some of them anyway), Stryker, and something called MRAP. Anything else?

Just semantics but the M113 was adopted in 1960, the first of the armoured Humvee's in 1996, Stryker in 2002, MRAP (stands for Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) class of vehicles in 2007, and the Bradley in 1980 (named Bradley in 1981) so none of them would be in between the bradley, and depending on how you look at it only the Stryker could maybe be classed as an armored troop carrier if you are using that term as in APC/MICV.

[Charlie 6]

I defer to your knowledge and experience; my comparison was that the artillery isn't out there looking for targets and potentially running across surprises with just what's loaded but is more of an on-call service.  And speaking purely in a perfect-world setting as well, of course.

Well, I started out thinking, "No S Sherlock," but stopped when I realized you're not wrong and someone else might not know that.  Also, I didn't have a no-kidding answer to what was happening.  Fundamentally, you're correct artillery is waiting on someone to want something killed or suppressed but there are also the times where you need to obscure, illuminate, go anti-tank, or toss out a mine field.  While not wrong it is not quite that simple (wrong word but it's been a long week so forgive me) because there are priority requirements for which you have to have ready ammunition.

Today, a colleague pointed out that I had left the battalions before electronic fuzes on multi-function devices showed up.  So that pretty much covers down fuze question.  Then I figured you could interrupt the magazine feed and go manual if you need to start doing things other than high explosive which covers down on the shell problem I implied silently to myself.  So it somewhat boils down to what exactly type of rounds you are going to go magazine fed with versus what you're willing to load manually.

[ANS Kamas P81]

How close is the artillery to the logistics and resupply chain anyway? Considering its preferred placement in the field, far enough behind the front line to not be threatened by direct attack but close enough that its (formidable) gun ranges can put shells on the enemy, I'd think you'd be a lot closer to the supply side of things and a lot less concerned about what's available at hand than, for example, said tanks or infantry.  Granted, there's counterbattery fire, and EVERYONE has to worry about air attack, but I'd expect a battery to have its own resupply sites nearby and a close connection to the mainline.

Again, perfect world, at least.

[Charlie 6]

How close is the artillery to the logistics and resupply chain anyway? Considering its preferred placement in the field, far enough behind the front line to not be threatened by direct attack but close enough that its (formidable) gun ranges can put shells on the enemy, I'd think you'd be a lot closer to the supply side of things and a lot less concerned about what's available at hand than, for example, said tanks or infantry.  Granted, there's counterbattery fire, and EVERYONE has to worry about air attack, but I'd expect a battery to have its own resupply sites nearby and a close connection to the mainline.

Again, perfect world, at least.

Now that is an astute question as a lot of it gets into, organic capability combat trains, field trains, logistics units, distribution nodes, etc.  Years ago on these forums, I posted a picture of my battery getting resupplied at Nasiriyah in '03.  If I recall, you could see two guns (M198s) with prime movers (7-tons), their ammo trucks (also 7-tons but trailers), and the battalion combat train (of which an LVS with Mk14(?) trailer was featured).  Basically, my battery carried a basic load of ammunition (800 to 900 rounds), and so did the battalion which worked out to a three battery battalion have four batteries worth of ammunition with the last being in its combat train.  The regimental field train would likely have a similar ratio and that would increase going further back the logistics train.  Factored into that is the rate of consumption which is an average over time by activity.

If you are wondering, "aren't they guessing at this point," well honestly I've thought the same but if there is enough depth further up the log chain you end up gaining time to make up the difference.  Case in point, "we" guessed wrong at Nasiriyah and ended up loaded for a medium to long range anti-armor fight but ended up in a short ranged anti-personnel fight.  Welp, in that instance you end up shooting Rocket Assisted Projectiles with the rocket OFF with your shortest ranged propellants because shooting all of the anti-armor ammunition would be less effective.

Anyway, fun times.

Please note, I haven't even touched on your (paraphrasing), "how do I protect it question," because making it happen is the first objective.  It is at this point, I wonder if I've glazed some eyes and/or not been helpful.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Quite informative actually; the details on how-to-protect generally get covered by distance from the front as well as proper screening forces I imagine.  A basic load of ammunition is even more than I'd expected it to be, and wow that is a solid logistics train right there with the battery - especially when you stack up the extra rounds at battalion level and stay together.

How much extra flammable boom does an unfired RAP booster give when the shell goes off?  Or do they separate somewhere midflight and just end up in the ground?

[kato]

A basic load of ammunition is even more than I'd expected it to be

For battalion level that's less than i had expected it to be.

German 105mm batteries in the Cold War (as towed artillery for rear-security (!) infantry brigades) which would have featured a similar per-time consumption rate (by rounds, not throw-weight) carried a basic load of 1000 rounds just on the gun tractor trucks.

The batallion ammunition supply squads would carry another 1000 rounds - each, at one per battery. And the basic load of the brigade that its supply company carried included about another 1000 rounds for the artillery somewhere in its mobile stocks...

Part of the reason for this is probably that supply for German units worked on the "pull" principle instead of "push" as the US Army uses. I.e. the battalion supply unit would actively retrieve ammunition from the brigade or DIV supply points once ammunition in the batteries runs low. In the US principle, you get the ammunition delivered from that level instead based on estimated consumption rate at set intervals.

[Charlie 6]

For battalion level that's less than i had expected it to be.

German 105mm batteries in the Cold War (as towed artillery for rear-security (!) infantry brigades) which would have featured a similar per-time consumption rate (by rounds, not throw-weight) carried a basic load of 1000 rounds just on the gun tractor trucks.

The batallion ammunition supply squads would carry another 1000 rounds - each, at one per battery. And the basic load of the brigade that its supply company carried included about another 1000 rounds for the artillery somewhere in its mobile stocks...

Part of the reason for this is probably that supply for German units worked on the "pull" principle instead of "push" as the US Army uses. I.e. the battalion supply unit would actively retrieve ammunition from the brigade or DIV supply points once ammunition in the batteries runs low. In the US principle, you get the ammunition delivered from that level instead based on estimated consumption rate at set intervals.

After 15 minutes of searching I can't find the weight of a 105mm round but since it is a semi-fixed ammunition type (meaning it has a powder canister attached) it is fairly light.  A 155mm round is nearly 100lbs.  For a sense of scale the 203mm is over 200lbs.  Both of those are separate loading (no canister with powder).  Bottom line, larger rounds and separate propellants means less total rounds carried...but the boom is ultimately bigger.

How much extra flammable boom does an unfired RAP booster give when the shell goes off?  Or do they separate somewhere midflight and just end up in the ground?

Negligible as far as I know.  There is no "separation" because a plug is removed to activate the rocket.  It is actually ignited by propellant.  When shooting RAP, I'd count how many rocket dots I could see heading down range because if you didn't see one per gun you were going to have a short round by about 10 km.

[ANS Kamas P81]

So here's a question when it comes to artillery.  SPG or towed?  Which is, in your opinion, more generally useful despite the drawbacks?

[Kidd]

Recently what I'd like to hear about is mortars.

Israeli Makmat 160mm SPG mortar, on a Sherman chassis

[Matti]

So here's a question when it comes to artillery.  SPG or towed?  Which is, in your opinion, more generally useful despite the drawbacks?

I'd say SPG for offense and mobile reserve, and towed for defense.

[marauder648]

The Soviet 2S4 240mm SP mortar for when you REALLY want to send someone a 'to whom it may concern' HE message.

[Charlie 6]

So here's a question when it comes to artillery.  SPG or towed?  Which is, in your opinion, more generally useful despite the drawbacks?

Well it depends on what you're trying to do.  For some, towed is a must have for expeditionary reasons while others facing potential invasion might go heavy SP with rapid fire capabilities to dish out massive volleys and then dodge the counter battery fires.

[PsihoKekec]

The Soviet 2S4 240mm SP mortar for when you REALLY want to send someone a 'to whom it may concern' HE message.

And laser guided rounds for ''especially for you'' deliveries.

[beachhead1985]

The Soviet 2S4 240mm SP mortar for when you REALLY want to send someone a 'to whom it may concern' HE message.

I love that these exist.

[The Eagle]

So here's a question when it comes to artillery.  SPG or towed?  Which is, in your opinion, more generally useful despite the drawbacks?

Self-propelled, at all times.  It's just so much easier to dodge counter-battery fire.

[DoctorMonkey]

Self-propelled, at all times.  It's just so much easier to dodge counter-battery fire.

The problem with that is the weight


If you are fundamentally a light infantry force (airborne, marines, etc) then hauling 30-50 tonne tracked vehicles isn't easy to do and may limit strategic mobility to an unacceptable extent


All things are a balance but most modern towed artillery pieces can be slung beneath a helicopter and their gun tractor can too


If I've got a heavy, armour centred force then I would want self propelled artillery in the same way I would want armoured or mechanised infantry and engineers and everything else so my Force can operate together

[Feenix74]

In some parts of the world, a 30-50 ton SP artillery may have limited tactical mobility.

[Kidd]

CV90 with Spike ATGM and Trophy APS


BMP-3 with 57mm cannon


Chinese 6x6 MLRS, firing 40km rockets


And I don't know what the hell this monster is... a really, really big SPAAG?

In some parts of the world, a 30-50 ton SP artillery may have limited tactical mobility.

M109s are still 30 tons right? that's not too bad.

AS-90 and the Pzh2000 though, ye gods!

[Feenix74]

And I don't know what the hell this monster is... a really, really big SPAAG?

What looks like a radar at the back of the turret would lead me to agree with your SPAAG hypothesis.

M109s are still 30 tons right? that's not too bad.

But compared to a M777 that comes in at 4.2 tons . . .

And you cannot do this with a M109:

[Greatclub]

I'm not an expert on the topic, and readily admit I could be wrong, but he story on the Bradley I've heard is this: Pentagon Wars movie distorted things a bit.

It was never intended to be primarily an APC. It's a light tank (although it's not called that) with an infantry support mission. The infantry bay in the back is icing on the cake, like the Merkava MBT - there to reduce the force's reliance on actual APCs

SOP was to be a fair distance behind the infantry lines, supporting them from the rear. Armour was designed to be sufficient to survive artillery shrapnel.

[HobbesHurlbut]

I'm not an expert on the topic, and readily admit I could be wrong, but he story on the Bradley I've heard is this: Pentagon Wars movie distorted things a bit.

It was never intended to be primarily an APC. It's a light tank (although it's not called that) with an infantry support mission. The infantry bay in the back is icing on the cake, like the Merkava MBT - there to reduce the force's reliance on actual APCs

SOP was to be a fair distance behind the infantry lines, supporting them from the rear. Armour was designed to be sufficient to survive artillery shrapnel.

"The earliest specification, from 1958, called for a vehicle of no more than 8 tons, mounting a turret with a 20 mm autocannon and a 7.62 mm machine gun, with sealed firing ports for five infantry gunners." - Michael Green & James D. Brown (2007). M2/M3 Bradley at War. St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press.

Sound like she was meant to be an Infantry Fighting Vehicle from get go.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

And I don't know what the hell this monster is... a really, really big SPAAG?

I wasn't aware that Minecraft had tanks.