Is the M-1 Abrams outclassed now?

[SethB]

Something the HEMTTs were designed to support, just in case we did start beating the Russians back- the tanks would need a logistics tail that could keep up with them. (Vizzini's nightmare scenario/one of the classic blunders.) I can't remember what the doctrine was but I thought it was a minimum number of miles per day across some specified terrain.

The HEMTT family of vehicles are part of a loose analogy of the Navy's doctrine of underway replenishment and power projection.

Yeah when the Army bought the Abrams they created tens of thousands of billets for fuelers and bought more trucks as well.

It's a pretty expensive vehicle to run. And it takes a lot of time to build up the fuel stores for a large operation.

 

[nittany03]

I just wonder if that big gun platform needs to still have a human inside it, given what we know about TBI now. The tank could get a lot smaller, lighter, faster, and cheaper if there isn’t a crew compartment to worry about protecting or ventilating.

At some point, you still have to have a human brain in the loop making decisions in a place where EA, cyber, and other nonkinetic effects can’t blind them or take them out of the fight. No one should be encouraging taking excessive or unnecessary casualties. But if it’s not worth putting people in harm’s way at all, it’s probably not worth fighting over in the first place.

 

[Randy Daytona]

It can provide infantry support but it's the wrong tool for the job if you are up against other tanks. For one thing, the chassis can't stabilize well enough to fire the cannon when it isn't pointed forward. So if you have to shoot uphill you may roll.

Source: An OCS classmate that hated his MGS with a passion.



That's the feedback I've gotten from my friends that served in them.



It's hard to really grasp the differences between Russian/Soviet artillery and ours. One thing to point out is that the US has computers and tables that allow us to calculated for MET (environmental changes that effect when the round falls) but we don't always use it. A mentor was a battery commander in OIF 1 and they shot cold stick, that is without adjusting for MET. It's fast and accurate enough for what he was doing.

The other thing that you have to take into account is organization and how that effects artillery use. The US has computer programs that can transmit a fire mission from the observer to the firing piece without any intervention. This is great with radar. The radar catches an incoming round on the ascending branch (while it is going up) calculates a point of origin and sends a fire mission to Brigade which routes it down to Battalion, Battery, Platoon and out to the shooter (cannon or rocket) without any human input.

Return fire timelines using that system are measured in seconds, not minutes.

Most Russian rocket launchers, in contrast, have a fire direction system that doesn't use HF/VHF/VSAT to send missions directly to the shooter. They have to type them in by hand. Shooting rockets and missiles off grids written on 3x5 cards works really well when you are shooting pre-ATO fires or something planned, but it doesn't work for a time sensitive target, a moving target or for return fire. In that regard the US is much more flexible than the Russians. They mass and they plan ahead. Their system works pretty well within its limitations.

Finally, a caveat. When the Army went to the BCT system they got rid of DIVARTY. I don't know the Navy well enough to make a good analogy but let me try. Imagine if every pilot were suddenly ship's company and had to explain and justify what they needed to maintain currency and prepare for war.

The result (though DIVARTY has been brought back) is a Field Artillery branch that hasn't trained itself how to perform key tasks in nearly 20 years.

Source: Me, Army 13A Field Artillery Officer for five years (2010-2014). HIMARS and MLRS.

Thank you for the information. Question for you as an artillery guy: are there any field pieces that the Army can internal in a Chinook (and for the Marines, a CH-53E) ? A 105mm howitzer? A 120mm mortar? (It looks like the M119 might fit internally.) External carry of field pieces is lot more limited to what you can put in internally and go downrange.

 

[Hotdogs]

Thank you for the information. Question for you as an artillery guy: are there any field pieces that the Army can internal in a Chinook (and for the Marines, a CH-53E) ? A 105mm howitzer? A 120mm mortar? (It looks like the M119 might fit internally.) External carry of field pieces is lot more limited to what you can put in internally and go downrange.

120s can go internally to Ospreys and 53s. We (Marines) don’t use 105mm artillery pieces anymore, 155s have to be externally carried by -53s.

 

[Griz882]

The M777A2 could theoretically fit inside a CH-47 but there is no good reason to do so. Sling-loading is faster. As for 120’s, sure. If we are talking about the M120 (Soltam K6) you could haul a bunch with their crews if they were dismounted. I can’t recall ever seeing a piece of artillery being placed inside a heavy lift helicopter - but there is a lot more going on in the world than I know of!

 

[Randy Daytona]

The M777A2 could theoretically fit inside a CH-47 but there is no good reason to do so. Sling-loading is faster. As for 120’s, sure. If we are talking about the M120 (Soltam K6) you could haul a bunch with their crews if they were dismounted. I can’t recall ever seeing a piece of artillery being placed inside a heavy lift helicopter - but there is a lot more going on in the world than I know of!

With the America class LHA looking like they are staying much further offshore (well over the horizon), I was curious to know (especially in light of the new Commandant) if that would affect Marine artillery. If the distance is too far for boats or LCAC's, how do you get artillery ashore? Don't think you want to sling load a M777 100+ miles. What would fit inside a 53? Looks like that leaves a 120mm mortar that the Corps currently has or maybe going back to the 105mm howitzer that the Army has.

 

[Hotdogs]

With the America class LHA looking like they are staying much further offshore (well over the horizon), I was curious to know (especially in light of the new Commandant) if that would affect Marine artillery. If the distance is too far for boats or LCAC's, how do you get artillery ashore? Don't think you want to sling load a M777 100+ miles. What would fit inside a 53? Looks like that leaves a 120mm mortar that the Corps currently has or maybe going back to the 105mm howitzer that the Army has.

Nothing really earth shattering. Depends on how the MEU gets tasked to deploy. There have been MEUs in the last 5 years that deployed solely with 120s. Given the recent events in Syria, I wouldn’t expect that to happen very often. 155s are probably the best all weather fire support asset the Marine Corps utilizes. It’s also nice to have a fire control system (AFATDS) that integrates into the networks multiple other agencies and platforms use.

 

[SethB]

Thank you for the information. Question for you as an artillery guy: are there any field pieces that the Army can internal in a Chinook (and for the Marines, a CH-53E) ? A 105mm howitzer? A 120mm mortar? (It looks like the M119 might fit internally.) External carry of field pieces is lot more limited to what you can put in internally and go downrange.

Never been in a light unit but my understanding has been that both the 105MM (M119A2) and the 155MM (M777A2) are sling loaded beneath the CH47.

Mortars in the Army are an infantry thing, even the 120MM mortar is crewed by infantryman. They are fairly small and light, the hardest part is having the right equipment to tow it when you get somewhere as it is too big to be carried.

When I first went to artillery school we were excited about NLOS-LS. It was basically a box that contained missiles that could be fired rmeotely. They were coordinate seeking so you could basically order them up with a small hand held device.

That project failed but my contact in the Marine artillery community told me that the future is guided rocket artillery. I like that because the manpower requirements are a fraction of the size, but the downside is less flexibility.

 

[SethB]

Nothing really earth shattering. Depends on how the MEU gets tasked to deploy. There have been MEUs in the last 5 years that deployed solely with 120s. Given the recent events in Syria, I wouldn’t expect that to happen very often. 155s are probably the best all weather fire support asset the Marine Corps utilizes. It’s also nice to have a fire control system (AFATDS) that integrates into the networks multiple other agencies and platforms use.

The Marines have a pretty streamlined system with mortars, 155s and HIMARS. The 120MM EFSS has apparently been a failure. The Army uses a different mortar system that doesn't have the same issues. I suspect that research will continue on small missiles because they will eventually be set up and fired remotely, so the crew footprint will be miniscule.

AFATDS is cool.It can be a pain in the ass to use but when it is up and working it really helps organize every aspect of fire support. If you turn all of the intervention points off and hook up to a radar you can return fire against other artillery units in less than a minute. Sexy.

 

[Griz882]

With the America class LHA looking like they are staying much further offshore (well over the horizon), I was curious to know (especially in light of the new Commandant) if that would affect Marine artillery. If the distance is too far for boats or LCAC's, how do you get artillery ashore? Don't think you want to sling load a M777 100+ miles. What would fit inside a 53? Looks like that leaves a 120mm mortar that the Corps currently has or maybe going back to the 105mm howitzer that the Army has.

That is a great question. As @Hotdogs notes it is nothing new, but the numbers (by my feeble estimate) are kind of interesting when one thinks of a peer-to-peer fight. I imagine it would take six to 8 CH-47's/MV-22's to lift a single 155 battery with ammunition - 24 plus to lift an entire battalion. Of course artillery battalions aren't sent anywhere alone, so you have already moved at least two infantry battalions (each with mortar capability). On top of that you have to add in CAP to cover the lift (or would HMLA do the job...maybe both?) and a nearly continuous logistics. Now the Corps work on a fully autonomous Huey (and K-Max) makes sense.

 

[Flash]

That project failed but my contact in the Marine artillery community told me that the future is guided rocket artillery. I like that because the manpower requirements are a fraction of the size, but the downside is less flexibility.

Israel is already there with their Spike-NLOS (Non Line Of Sight) missile system, basically a much larger version of their Spike ATGM's that can go out to 25km. The Marines already have them, the Republic of Korea Marine Corps that is.



P.S. A guided rocket = missile.

 

[SethB]

P.S. A guided rocket = missile.

For whatever reason Army artillery considers 227MM guided rockets to be, well... rockets.

 

[Flash]

For whatever reason Army artillery considers 227MM guided rockets to be, well... rockets.

Well, Army being Army is a good enough explanation for that.

 

[Jim123]

Well, Army being Army is a good enough explanation for that.

Hooah.

 

[SethB]

Israel is already there with their Spike-NLOS (Non Line Of Sight) missile system, basically a much larger version of their Spike ATGM's that can go out to 25km. The Marines already have them, the Republic of Korea Marine Corps that is.

I haven't really followed that development, but it appears that the big difference is in guidance systems.

The Army is apparently working on its own system that splits the difference between the Spike and the GMLRS. Also, the ATACMS is supposed to be replaced with something that has a similar range but is smaller so a HIMARS launcher can carry more of them.