previous post next post  

Heh. Different strokes for different folks.

By The Armorer on September 8, 2006 | | Comments (12)

Otay. When we went to Afghanistan about the only artillery we took was mortars and 105's. I know we eventually sent M198 towed 155's. I don't believe we ever sent Paladin or any other M109 variant. Well, there *were* a lot of Flying Expedited Delivery of EXplosives services available...

Because... well, gee, they're too heavy, not nimble, expensive, etc.

A Netherlander Howitzer 2000 is fastened to the floor of a C-17 Globemaster III at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, Sept. 6. The 60-ton tank (It's not a friggin' tank, it's a howitzer, nimrods!) will be flown to Afghanistan on board a C-17 from Charleston Air Force Base, S.C. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. John Lasky)



A Netherlander Howitzer 2000 is fastened to the floor of a C-17 Globemaster III at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, Sept. 6. The 60-ton tank will be flown to Afghanistan on board a C-17 from Charleston Air Force Base, S.C. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. John Lasky)

IT'S NOT A FRIGGIN' TANK! Ahem.

So, here's a Dutch Panzerhaubitze 2000 (the turret will make CDR Salamander salivate), flying to Afstan. A Dutch howitzer that looks a lot like the cancelled Crusader... Nope - not reopening the Crusader argument! Just... bemused.

Share This Article:

Categories:

12 Comments

By Snarky Mood Boquisucio on September 8, 2006 8:30 AM
Oh yeah - But why then does it need a wee bit of latex rubber on the pointy thinggy. Guess that the Dyke Denizens like to be safe when engaging the enemy. ;()
 
By Snarky Mood Boquisucio on September 8, 2006 8:55 AM
I wonder how the locals would have taken it if a beasty like The Crusader would ever have been deployed in garden spots like Balad and Faluya. On a more serious note, I am glad that the Germans finaly got around in field testing the 155mm/52 on a frigate. If memory doesn't play tricks on me, the first time I heard of the project was back in the fall of 1999. I know - I know, it takes years for new systems to come on line.
 
By MajMike on September 8, 2006 12:45 PM
that has got to be the cleanest interior of any cargo aircraft i have ever seen...
 
By John of Argghhh! on September 8, 2006 1:12 PM
Well, they're relatively new and haven't carried decade's worth of puking paratroopers...
 
By jim b on September 8, 2006 1:58 PM
Or worse yet a decade worth of leaking vehicles, artillery et al. Nothing like a light coat of tar colored motor oil, hydraulic fluid and recoil oil to add that "special unwashable patina" to a flight deck. At least paratrooper puke you can flush out with a hose. All those petroleum based leaks are really hard to get rid of. Especially with government issued cleaning agents …. like a brush some generic contributed by the lowest bidder comet type crap and a bucket of water
 
By Heartless Libertarian on September 8, 2006 10:36 PM
Back in spring '99, when they air-mailed my Mechanized Infantry Battalion Task Force, TF 1-6 IN (M), to Tirana-Rinas, Albania, via Ramstein, on C-17s, Bradleys, M1s, attached Engineers, Paladins and all, they wouldn't let anything with even a Class 1 leak on board. Same thing when we were flying Strykers around. And does this Wunder-Howitzer have to have it's FAASV equivalent air-mailed in a separate plane, just like the Crusader? Because 60 tons is pretty close to the C-17s weight limit.
 
By Doug K on September 9, 2006 12:45 AM
I believe in survivability and SP arty as much as the next guy, but (speaking as an ex-tanker), jus' what about these vehicles calls for and puts them in the freakin' Class 60 range fercryinoutloud? That's MBT territory!
 
By Blake Kirk on September 9, 2006 5:27 AM
The Air Force keeps their 17's pretty clean. I know, I just got done loading a mixed bag of helicopters onto ten of the big honkin' things. Film at eleven (or whenever I can e-mail the images to John...) Normal ACL (aircraft cabin load) for a C-17 is 45 short tons/ 90,000 lbs. They can take off with lots more than that, but do so by sacrificing fuel load in order not to exceed maximum takeoff weight. So when they are hauling a heavy load like the Dutch howitzer seen here, or one of our M1A1 MBT's, the C-17 MUST link up with a tanker soon after takeoff and take on additional fuel. They did this back in 2003, airlifting M1's and Brads into Kirkuk as reinforcements after the airborne troops (I think it was the 173rd out of Vincenza,) dropped on the airport there.
 
By John of Argghhh! on September 9, 2006 5:50 AM
Um, building 'em with tank components to reduces the number of spares. The PzHbtz 2000 is a cousin of the Crusader in concept and timeframe - and the Euros during that time weren't planning on going anywhere... And unlike us, they don't just toss over the applecart (and a few billion dollars) and start over from scratch.
 
By Doug K on September 9, 2006 1:14 PM
Ya, I grasp the concept of utilizing existing common components OK, but most of a tanks' weight is in heavy armor not required by SP arty. As a basis of comparison, the M109A6 155mm Howitzer is based on M551 AR/AAV components (a 17 ton light vehicle) and weighed it at 63,600lbs combat loaded. An M107 or M110 (no protective turret, of course) was just slightly less. That's near 30 tons of sacrificed mobility and transport (air or trailered) that hardly seems justified by a stand-off weapon that shouldn't be expected to take direct fire of the "armor defeating" variety (meaning true anti-tank penetration capability, that kind of frontal armor is an extravagent use of RHA). 60 tons seems a heckuva' lot for SP Arty.
 
By Ledger on September 10, 2006 5:57 AM
I have 2 basic questions on the PzH 2000 Artillery system: 1. What are base-bleed ammunition(s)? 2. What are assisted projectiles? The “assisted projectiles” sound like rocket type of projectiles – but I don’t know.
 
By John of Argghhh! on September 10, 2006 8:42 AM
Base bleed projectiles have a compound in the base of the projectile that burns upon firing to produce gas that bleeds out a hole to fill the partial vacuum that exists behind a projectile as it flies to the target. This reduces the drag and extends the range, without the ballistic effects that rocket-assisted projectiles have - the rather-more-active impact on the trajectory from a burning rocket motor on a projectile that can't correct for anomalies introduced by the rocket.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.