Thanks Galvars for the idea!
Photos and vehicle description via Olive Drab.
The Howitzer, Self-propelled 105mm M52 / M52A1 was developed starting in 1948 as one of a set of post-WW II self-propelled artillery weapons. It replaced the M-7 Priest 105mm SP and M37 105mm HMC. With the advent of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the Army specified that the new artillery platforms would be fully enclosed to provide not only protection from conventional weapons, but also for the NBC protection required by the nuclear battlefield.This is the granddaddy of the M-109.
The M-52 was based on components of the M41 Walker Bulldog Light Tank. The rear track idler wheel was lowered to the ground to resist firing shock and no recoil spade was provided. The engine and transmission were in the front section of the hull, while the rear hull was the base of a large turret with a 60° traverse left or right of center. The turret had access doors and hatches for the driver, gunner, and commander. An anti-aircraft .50 cal. machine gun was mounted at the commander's hatch. During development, the vehicle was known as the T98, then the T98E1 which was standardized as the M-52.
The main gun of the M-52 was the 105mm M49 Howitzer.
A total of 684 M-52 105mm Self-propelled Howitzers were built by Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. in Milwaukee, WI starting in 1954.
What will be interesting is what happens on a modern battlefield. A battlefield where we receive counter battery fire in the form of 122mm rockets hitting us with the Chinese/Russian version of steel rain.
Marine Corps leadership preached killing Iraqi artillery in the first Gulf War. They told every pilot over and over again that we (meaning the ground forces) could handle Iraqi Tanks, AFVs and Infantry. Artillery was a different matter. Even then, Russian guns out ranged our own.
Future artillery doctrine isn't talked about a lot but it will be as interesting any other development on the battlefield.
I remember seeing the hulks of these things out on the ranges and training areas at Sill and Riley
ReplyDeleteWhat is boils down to is do you want to air lift or surface lift your artillery?
ReplyDeleteAir lifted is stuck where it is dropped, M777A2 or small, EFSS. HIMARS is supposed to do the heavy lifting in counter battery.
Surface lifted could buy you a Nexter Ceasar. Longer range, smaller crew and ability to rapidly emplace and displace. As it is the 7-ton and M777A2 weigh about the same as a Ceasar if not more. Plus has a larger crew but can be carried by MV-22.
HIMARS is C-130 transportable or surface transported.
This plays towards an something I have been kicking around with fellow officers and that is; can we go light enough to have everything air transported and still be able to fight or do we need to accept the limitations of surface transport fight heavier?
this lust for lightness is misguided in my opinion. expeditionary is an operating concept, not a weapons fit. what good does it do to get their first if all you are is a speed bump.
Deletei remember reading that planning for the 1st gulf war involved the 82nd simply acting as a delaying force if Iraq actually decided to cross into Saudi Arabia in the first few weeks of that conflict.
they were there first but couldn't do shit against a mechanized force. the USMC is heading down that same road.
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/infantry
DeleteIf you have not read these articles I highly recommend it. Best book on Gulf War is "The General's War" http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/generals-war-michael-r-gordon/1112236307?ean=9780316321006.
The talk about exactly what you mentioned, the 82nd was to be a speed bump because they were light infantry in the open desert. Those Gazette articles are all about why that is a terrible idea.
That is one of the thoughts I keep mulling over in my head, is that there are two ways to conduct forcible entry, Airborne or Seaborne. In airborne you are very limited in tonnage of what can carry and sustainment can be almost impossible. Seaborne you have the limitations of needing to move the ship close but sustainment is much easier and your tonnage can be much heavier. The Army cannot get a main battle tank or infantry fighting vehicle into the fight until they can seize a full size airport. Then they get 1 tank or 2 IFV per C-17. We can do that per LCAC load at a significantly higher sortie rate.
But if we disregard the advantages of being Seaborne and insist on everything being both Seaborne and Airborne we now have the worst of both worlds.
from your lips to HQMC's ears. i just don't get where they're trying to head with the organization. the dirty bird in the room is that sea base as currently envisioned is unworkable. 200 nm off shore puts you in range of shore based defenses. many anti-ship missiles are waaaaay above that.
Deletewe're lost as a service right now and i hate to see it. the only good thing we have going is our history and the fact that the other services are as fucked up as we are.