Comments for Something old, something new.

Something old, something new.

2004-09-16T13:00:13Z

First off, something old (not the troops, but the gun, the location, and the music). I have served in all three positions, though.

Maryland National Guardsmen of the 110th Field Artillery, 29th Infantry Division, provide a cannon fire accompaniment for the U.S. Army Field Band�s performance of Tchaikovsky�s�1812 Overture,� at Baltimore�s Defender�s Day Celebration in Fort McHenry. Photo by Leah Rubalcaba.

Something new. Testing of the proposed replacement for the Paladin, since Crusader was slain by Rumsfeld and Co. The NLOS Cannon. (Non-Line Of Sight) The silly name comes from the not-silly decision made when designing the next iteration of the Army to deliberately change the terminology - to help keep the designers out of old thinking ruts. It's silly-sounding now, but will morph into something else by the time it gets fielded. Just as the unit terms, like Unit of Action and Unit of Employment are changing as units actually start converting. Doing the analysis of these systems and structures is what I do for a living now.

Obviously, we've stuck the M777 ULFH (Ultra Light Field Howitzer, a brit-designed gun) on a light tracked chassis.

Comment from Alan Massey on 2004-09-17

2004-09-18T00:02:18Z

Monieth: "Is that a Striker (British long base CVR(T)) Chassis? Or is it a derivative of the M3 Bradly chassis?" It appears to be based on the platform designed for the cancelled FSCS/TRACER program, rather than either the CVR(T) or Bradley chassis. According to this pdf file at least; http://www.udlp.com/media/UD_press_kit/word/demonstrator.pdf

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2004-09-16

2004-09-16T19:20:12Z

Jack - the answer to that question is the subject of a book, FM 6-40, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Field Artillery Manual Cannon Gunnery. The short answer is; If you meet the 5 requirements for accurate predicted fire you should hit (depending on weapon system and other variables like range) within 25-50 meters of your intended point of impact. With some weapon systems, it can easily be closer... but, you have to have met the requirements within standard to do better than 25-50 meters, and the one that will most likely trip you up, especially over range, is meterorological data. The 5 requirements are: 1. Accurate Target Location and Size. You've got to know where it is, how it is oriented (especially linear targets, like trenches for example) and how big it is in terms of area and target density in the area. This includes the target altitude, since you have to know if the target is above or below the battery altitude (draw a trajectory curve and why becomes obvious). 2. Accurate Firing Unit Location. You have to know where you are and what altitude you are at - and what direction you are pointing. If your battery location requires you to be spread out, you are on uneven terrain, etc, you need to know individual weapon location info to adjust each gun's basic data to achieve the desired sheaf (pattern of fall of shot) on the target. Known as Terrain Gun Position Corrections, TGPC). 3. Accurate Weapon and Ammunition information. You have to know how the gun and ammunition deviate from the 'standard' data, so that you can apply corrections to the basic data. 4. Accurate Meteorological information. You have to know how the met data varies from the standard. The art in this is where you put your met gear to collect the data. The longer the range, the more likely unaccounted for deviations (like wind currents and density altitude changes) will affect the projectile in ways you can't predict because you don't have the data. Wind changes can have a surprisingly large effect, less so than density and humidity issues (though the latter can affect propellant efficiency - but that's covered under gun and ammo data). 5. Accurate Computational Procedures. You have to do the math right. Not bad from memory. As for laser guided, they already exist. Copperhead, since the late 70's. I've personally used them for bunker busting, even if they were intended for tanks. We are also developing/have developed (as have other nations) GPS guided rounds. As for your last paragraph, that is one of the lessons learned from OEF in Afghanistan. The realignment of artillery is reducing the cannon and some missile units in the Corps artillery, which is used to reinforce divisional artillery and for the Corps commander to use in his intermediate to deep fights. That area of the battlefield is adequately handled, we believe, by airpower, attack helicopters (also under the corps commander's control) and the rocket systems. In some of the re-designs, there can be more cannons available at lower echelons than previously. The rule of thumb when we went across Northern Europe in 1944 and on through the Cold War planning was a battalion of artillery for every battalion of committed maneuver - made possible by the fact that artillery isn't held in reserve, when the unit it is supporting goes into reserve, the artillery is re-tasked to support other manuever units in range. We'll still have close to that level of support, if not quite - and the increased lethality of artillery, combined with the 120mm mortars, attack helos, etc, mean the in-contact manuever commander will have as much ability to reach out and touch someone as he's had in the past. Essentially, we're just reallocating force structure that advances in technology have made redundant, and are applying those spaces to places where we need more bodies - like SOF, infantry, and MPs. So yes, Jack - if it's keeping you awake at night, you are probably overly concerned!

Comment from J.M. Heinrichs on 2004-09-16

2004-09-16T18:58:26Z

1. Harrummph! Technically speaking (in the broaaaaaaadest sense) a light vehicle has a chassis weight of 10-12T or a GVW of 15T; above that it's a medium vehicle. 2. My Overture 1812 experience was at Fort Henry with the Kingston Orchestra, assisted by the guns of the Fort Henry Garrison, during a rainstorm ... Cheers JMH

Comment from Jack on 2004-09-16

2004-09-16T18:31:24Z

The quote on the War of 1812 and Tchaikovsky was from "Solomon Short" who if I recall correctly was invented by David Gerrold in reaction to Robert A. Heinlein's "Lazarus Long".

Comment from Jack on 2004-09-16

2004-09-16T18:24:57Z

I'll have to look up who said it, but the first part of your post reminded me of a quote: "The only winner of the War of 1812 was Tchaikovsky." I think it was Samuel Clemens, but I'm not sure. I did have a question for you, John. What is the accuracy of artillery today? In other words, what is the minimum radius that it can be guaranteed (as much as anything in war can be guaranteed) that you can put a shell? Also, would it be possible (and worthwhile) to develop a laser guided shell? One that used a laser spot from a forward observer to hit a very specific target? I'm not an expert by any means, but it appears to me that artillery has the huge advantage over air power in that it is not completely halted by bad weather, as air power is on occasion. For that very significant reason, it seems to me that we should not reduce artillery strength as much as I fear we might in the realignment of our armed forces. Am I overly concerned here?

Comment from Montieth on 2004-09-16

2004-09-16T16:57:00Z

Is that a Striker (British long base CVR(T)) Chassis? Or is it a derivative of the M3 Bradly chassis?

Comment from caltechgirl on 2004-09-16

2004-09-16T15:05:36Z

thanks for the NLOS update. My husband was a Paladin mechanic for 3 years and was hoping to get a chance to work on one of these babies but thankfully he got out too soon. Now he works with high school students and I;m not sure which is more belligerent :)