maxwellbest

Correct. Same arguments were heard re the Leopard 1s being sent to Ukraine. Better a Leopard 1 than an M113 or the like.

Pardon my ignorance, but isnt GPS jammable? Thus rendering GPS munitions suspect? I can recall watching a film on the effects of artillery during my service days, VT fuses...they could be spoofed, correct me if I am wrong.

Rumint suggests 105 light guns may supplied to Ukraine by UK with training on them to be undertaken by UK/NZ...guess not much use in the attritional battle under way in the Donbass..but easily deployable with no shortage of ammo globally...source is yt so we will see...

Haven't read through all the threads, noticed that Cappy on YT had some info up about this. Isn't this some kind of back to the future kind of scenario? Thinking about the Swedish and Japanese 6.x ammunition. Between 7.62 and 5.56. Note that I have not drilled down to the specifics of the aforementioned ammo vs the current ammo. Back in the day, in my post Vietnam service in the Australian Army, there was intense discussion regarding the SLR and its 7.62 ammo, yes, heavy, but super reliable, easy to maintain. Anything hit with it wasn't getting up again. It was also recognized that 5.56 had its advantages also, M16, lightweight, could carry plenty of beans. To that end, at section level, our M60s were 7.62, section commanders, scouts carried the M16, No 1 rifleman carried the M203, the rest carried SLRs. Note the multiplicity of ammo types. Typical of the loadout from Vietnam days. From what I can make out, there wasn't too many dramas re logistics. Discussion in the boozer revolved around the merits of said arrangement, certainly the best of both worlds. The Swedish ammo would come up as something in-between, perhaps a viable replacement for 7.62 and 5.56? With current situation, with the 6.8mm "winning" isnt there a hint of the 1950s situation, where the .280 round was preferred, however standardization with USA won the day, along the lines of "you will all now use 7.62"...to again be turned on its head in the '60s with the adoption of the 5.56 as the standard? I cannot see militaries, particularly a relatively small military like Australia, suddenly going oh, yes, we will have that..anytime soon. Just my five cents worth (we dont have 2 cent coins anymore).

Smaller armies too, that means only the most important hardware remain. You can live without 105 but not without 155. If huge armies return you can specialize again. Good point. Small armies (like Australia) have to make hard choices. Resources are most definitely finite.

Hi all, With all the focus on the "situation" in Ukraine, noticing the emphasis on the 155mm. Here in Australia, the 155mm has replaced the 105, where previously there had been a mix of 105 and 155mm. I havent paid any real attention to why this was so..from my time in the service it was understood that at least one battery of 105s would be attached to each infantry battalion for on call work etc. Logistically, it would seem easier to support 105s, lighter gun, lighter round, more of them able to be supplied. I get that each 155mm round is more destructive, but that you would have less of them. I also get that more sophisticated rounds are available for the 155mm. And of course greater range. I assume the trend is going to continue. With that in mind, as a non artilleryman, what is the current thinking out there with the whole 105mm vs 155mm, the role of artillery in supporting the infantryman and of course armour etc?

Re Peacekeeping...is there a peace to keep? I am sure NATO "peacekeepers" would go down like a lead balloon in the Kremlin...

Long time lurker also checking in here...from the days of Steel Beasts One and following Manic Moran in Iraq...