Letters

     Send comments to:  editorG2mil@Gmail.com   We have space for most, but not all comments.   Let us know if you want us to use your name and/or your organization, otherwise we assume you prefer privacy.  Some letters may end up as content elsewhere in G2mil.  Avoid political comments, this is a weapons and tactics website.  

##################################### 

155mm Mortar

Interesting article. I used to be in the Firepower Branch at Ft Benning.

Worked with several people to get the 120MM Tampella mortar demonstrated/adopted. Also participated in the 60mm mortar on tank test (part of the effort to use Israeli experience in the late 70s - early 80s. However, I digress: If you visit Picatinny Arsenal, the museum has (or had, last time I was there many years ago) two odd-looking weapons sitting outside. These were the 105mm and 155mm HowTars or Baseplate Howitzers (No one seemed at the time to be able to name them!). They fired conventional 105 and 155 artillery ammunition, were breech loaded, and used the baseplate and possibly limited recoil mechanisms to take the recoil. These were sent to Vietnam for testing and returned, placed on the shelf, and forgotten. As I recall, they were turned down because they gave the Infantry Battalion level commander too much range outside his operational area and the baseplates tended to dig themselves into the mud. (The folks who evaluated this probably never had to dig up a baseplate after rapid fire...I have seen I81 mortars buried up to the sights in Georgia clay, and have dug out too many 4.2" baseplates to want to think about them). I also suspect that the weapons were tested by the artillery, who really are not fond of mortars, rather than the Infantry. Also, the names are self-defeating: Rather than simply calling them a "105" or "155) mm mortar, the titles chosen belonged to neither the Infantry or the Artillery.

The baseplate howitzers are probably still at Picatinny, and you might be able to get the test reports on them if interested

###################################

ARTANK - the Abrams tank/Paladin howitzer hybrid

 
 I will agree that we need to increase the speed of the artillery (keep up with the maneuver commander in a heavy unit) however the very nature of seeing enemy from a artillery man stand point means that he can see you. This is fine for the tanker and mech infantry, however artillery does not have the armor to stop anything more than a 7.62MM.  A tank can shoot 4 rounds for every one that I can shoot, and that is not to speak of the computations that must occur before we can shoot the round. 
 
  The good old days of artillery everywhere are long gone. In the gulf, artillery was not allowed to fire anything less than a battalion sized element. This was mainly due to the limited ammo. The copperhead you speak of is a joke. It is very difficult to use, and they cost so much and a battalion currently might get two. The difficult part is for the observer, the target has to be on the same Gun Target Line as the gun. Unless he makes this a priority to train with these constantly, he forgets. At the guns, you just shoot it. If you look back on the Gulf, I believe only 15% ever hit their targets.
 
 The theory of putting us artillery man up front with the tanks would be better served by having a dedicated forward observer with every platoon of tanks. Mixing the Paladin & M1 would be a waste. Currently the Paladin weighs so much (60 tons) that it is hard enough just to get the battle field. The Paladin also needs to travel with an Ammo track close by or it will be out of business very quickly. So now you have 2 vehicles rushing to keep up with the fight. It could be done, but at what cost?  I think it would be to high.
 
 I would like to see the artillery use something like the G5/6 from south Africa. It has a 40KM and rolls on wheels. The armor is much less but this is artillery and we should be a few clicks behind the tanks. 
 

##########################################

Stingers SAMs in an anti-armor role

 There is so much to discuss here and I have only mentioned a few reason why this would not be good use of recourses. Given the ideal battle field and enemy, it would work. With the current train of thought being the next battle field being OOTW or MOUT, this is not ideal.

1. If the Avenger can engage aircraft at 3.5 miles, at what range can their Stingers lock-on to the heat produced by an armored vehicle?

A.  The actual numbers are classified.  I have tracked ground targets, it can be done.  The problem is usually a masking problem with the heat source.  The infra-red produced by ground vehicles is but a fraction of that produced by aircraft.

2. What damage can the impact of a 22 lbs supersonic Stinger with a 6 lbs HE warhead cause on an armored vehicle?

A.  I am unaware of any warhead testing against armored vehicles.  There is substantial kinetic energy produced, and suspect that it should be able to penetrate light armor. Once again, a few tests should answer the question.

3. Would it be worthwhile to procure an anti-armor Stinger with a shaped charge? These may also prove useful against armored helicopters.

A.  Current Stinger warhead is a standard cylinder shape.  It could be redesigned, but this would effect the missile center of gravity, and would effect the flight dynamics.  It is also located behind the gyro/detector assembly, so any shaped charge would have to have some kind of crush switch located forward of the warhead.  Once again, not a trivial change.

4. Will inexpensive Hydra 70mm unguided rockets be procured for the Avengers to enhance rear area security? They have already been successfully fired from the Stinger pods.

A.  Back in the mid 80's, LTV had a Stinger mount that used both the Standard Vehicle Mounted Launcher (SVML) pods (same as Avenger).  This vehicle also had the Hydra rockets.  It was not a direct replacement to the Stinger Pods, but instead was provided in addition to.  LTV then modified their launcher and it was one of the three vehicles that was in competition for the Pedestal Mounted Launcher contract. The Avenger, the only one of the three that had a heads-up mode, won.  Last that I know, their mount was being used for a demo on a navy ship.  The original Setter is what you want, and I'm not sure that it's around.  Suspect that LTV used part to build their PMS candidate.

5. Can 20mm Gatling cannon be fitted instead of .50 cal HMGs as was originally planned for the Avenger? These cannon are to be used on the RAH-66 Comanche Stealth helicopters and are available from unused M163 mounted and towed Vulcan ADA systems. A powerful cannon coupled with Stinger/Hydra-70 rockets increases the Avenger's utility against both ground and air targets.

A.  Not sure if this is in the current Planned Product Improvement map for Avenger.  It would require re-testing and re-certification of existing Avengers.  Last I know, there were weight problems that would require a heavy duty suspension HMMVW mod.  Not sure if this has happened.  Once again, money is the main driver in any updates.

Hope that this has helped.  As on of the engineers that worked on the SVML pods during engineering development, I don't mind helping out when I can.

########################################