Artillery

[OPSSG]

2. the effectiveness of the weapon depends on training and motivation --this includes training involving multiple units with multiple commands/communications/etc

..a mediocre weapon in trained, motivated hands is better than a great weapon in untrained, unmotivated hands = cheaper does not always mean less effective

1. Singapore’s war planning process and approach to building our conscript force structure is often misunderstood by Americans. In Oct 1965, a senior Israel Defence Force officer, Major-General Rehavam Ze'evi, was dispatched to Singapore to meet then Defence Minister Goh Keng Swee in secret. He then assembled a team that developed The Brown Book - a masterplan for the build-up of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). The SAF may be small but it is a full spectrum force, integrated at a tri-service level supported by a cyber team. Here’s a video of US Marines, training in Singapore.

2. Two members of my family were trained in armoured warfare by these Israeli Army advisors; prior to the 1973 Oct War — a fact that that the SAF did not acknowledge until this intimate relationship was declassified, decades after the first Singaporean soldiers were trained in this formerly secret scheme.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1392419413366755328

3. Modern SAF TTPs are hugely influenced by our 6 years of deployments in Afghanistan in support of American troops alongside with Australian and NZ armed forces. 492 SAF personnel served in Afghanistan — providing a range of military capabilities in support of ISAF troops in their fight against the Taliban that includes deploying a platoon of UAVs, a pair of artillery hunting radars (to provide warning on rocket attacks), multiple rotations of imagery analysis and information fusion teams (in support of the S2) and a surgical team to Oruzgan. Singaporean Artillery trainers were also deployed to Kabul; and the SAF provided a small team of 6, in summer, to support the NZDF PRT in Bamiyan.

 

[sark]

1. Singapore’s war planning process and approach to building our conscript force structure is often misunderstood by Americans. In Oct 1965, a senior Israel Defence Force officer, Major-General Rehavam Ze'evi, was dispatched to Singapore to meet then Defence Minister Goh Keng Swee in secret. He then assembled a team that developed The Brown Book - a masterplan for the build-up of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). The SAF may be small but it is a full spectrum force, integrated at a tri-service level supported by a cyber team. Here’s a video of US Marines, training in Singapore.

2. Two members of my family were trained in armoured warfare by these Israeli Army advisors; prior to the 1973 Oct War — a fact that that the SAF did not acknowledge until this intimate relationship was declassified, decades after the first Singaporean soldiers were trained in this formerly secret scheme.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1392419413366755328

3. Modern SAF TTPs are hugely influenced by our 6 years of deployments in Afghanistan in support of American troops alongside with Australian and NZ armed forces. 492 SAF personnel served in Afghanistan — providing a range of military capabilities in support of ISAF troops in their fight against the Taliban that includes deploying a platoon of UAVs, a pair of artillery hunting radars (to provide warning on rocket attacks), multiple rotations of imagery analysis and information fusion teams (in support of the S2) and a surgical team to Oruzgan. Singaporean Artillery trainers were also deployed to Kabul; and the SAF provided a small team of 6, in summer, to support the NZDF PRT in Bamiyan.

..the Israelis certainly know what they doing ..their military history is very impressive...my Barracks Commander was in tanks [ the USMC moves officers around to different units sometimes ] ..he said he worked with the Israelis

 

[John Fedup]

The Ukrainian war has demonstrated on how important rockets can be but artillery has also been a big player as well. Long range fires with mobile launchers is expensive albeit effective. Advanced long range guided 155 mm shells is a way to address the expense but at the price of explosive payload.

It should be no surprise the Chinese have been paying attention. Currently China is experimenting with a new 203 mm gun. The extra barrel diameter will allow twice as much payload as a 155 mm shell. Coupled with long range guided shells, a possible economic alternative to expensive rockets. I imagine the production of shells would be vastly larger than rockets.

China's Secretive Quest for Heavier Artillery

A now-deleted post reveals a research contract to test-fire 203mm shells, bigger than anything in the U.S. or Chinese arsenal.

www.defenseone.com

 

[Redlands18]

The Ukrainian war has demonstrated on how important rockets can be but artillery has also been a big player as well. Long range fires with mobile launchers is expensive albeit effective. Advanced long range guided 155 mm shells is a way to address the expense but at the price of explosive payload.

It should be no surprise the Chinese have been paying attention. Currently China is experimenting with a new 203 mm gun. The extra barrel diameter will allow twice as much payload as a 155 mm shell. Coupled with long range guided shells, a possible economic alternative to expensive rockets. I imagine the production of shells would be vastly larger than rockets.

China's Secretive Quest for Heavier Artillery

A now-deleted post reveals a research contract to test-fire 203mm shells, bigger than anything in the U.S. or Chinese arsenal.

www.defenseone.com

W48 - Wikipedia
Depends on what sort of payload you are using, the Americans actually developed Tac Nukes for use from 155mm Howitzers. The W48 head a yield of 0.72kt.

 

[John Fedup]

W48 - Wikipedia
Depends on what sort of payload you are using, the Americans actually developed Tac Nukes for use from 155mm Howitzers. The W48 head a yield of 0.72kt.

Yes, but the counter fire wouldn’t be pleasant.

 

[Bob53]

If it hasn’t already happened; I wonder which country in the region will be the first to acquire “suicide” drones; IMO unlikely to happen soon given that the priority for most countries at present is to acquire UASs for ISR.

To me; the attack on ARAMCO’s facility and the Russian airbase in Syria us a wage up call. It reinforces the need for tbt ability to deal with a variety of threats; from a UAS operating at high altitude which is easily detected and targeted; to a much smaller one flying at a lower altitude with a low IR signature which makes it hard for IR MANPADs to lock on to; to swarms of mini systems simultaneously making their way to a target from very low altitudes and from different angles.

Your posts here #16 and #17 from 2 years ago are almost like you had a crystal ball…..

 

[swerve]

Yes, but the counter fire wouldn’t be pleasant.

Indeed. Both sides made it pretty clear that a nuke used against them would be met with nukes. Trying to decouple battlefield use from blowing up both the USA & USSR was insanity.

I recall reading published 1970s Pentagon staff papers. They were terrifying. They didn't state it explicitly, but looking at the sort of targets they suggested might be feasibly attacked with nuclear weapons without provoking a "strategic" response, then looking at a map, was very, very scary. It was possible to see that many of their suggested non-strategic targets had names such as Warsaw or Minsk. Equivalents for the USSR included Rotterdam & Frankfurt.

There was no boundary between targets like them & battlefield use of nukes, just gradations on a spectrum.