At the heart of the British Army’s tubed artillery requirement is the absolute need to maximise lethality AND survivability.

These are the two macro requirements where we must not compromise, because, to do so puts our mission and our people at risk.

This article is the opinion of Maj Gen (Retd) Simon Humphrey CBE. Simon is a decorated British Army officer who commanded the Artillery Brigade providing support to the British Army’s premier fighting division in Germany from 2012-2014 and led the Combat Support Capability Directorate within the British Army HQ from 2014-2017.

He also served in the Afghanistan theatre across 2018 as the Commander of British Forces and the Kabul Security Force, leading a seven-nation, over 1,000-strong force responsible for delivering security to the NATO mission. Currently, Simon holds the position of Vice President of Business Development & Strategy for Hanwha Aerospace UK.

And we must look at these needs through the lens of ‘a bad day in Central Europe’, because, however some might want to reimagine the delivery of surface to surface lethal effect at range, in the combat zone, I remain of the clear view that for now it will be: dangerous, dirty, noisy, human, smelly, unpredictable, plagued by mechanical challenges, fast moving, physically demanding, tough, exhausting and above all essential. Anyone who tells you differently has never lived it.

Survivability – Operational mobility AND tactical mobility both matter. But I would always choose to carry my risk at some distance from the fight. Tactical mobility is much more than driving on rough terrain as some will have you believe. It is about using the ground and the environment, which might be urban or forested or open, hard packed, muddy, boggy, snowy or sandy, to aid survivability and to achieve tactical advantage.

If you can’t turn on a dime, crest a knife edge, breach an obstacle, knock down trees or buildings, drive over battlefield debris then you quickly loose relevance and commanders are constrained in their flexibility of employment – bad outcome [angry emoji]  Some would suggest that ‘shoot and scoot’ is about parking on the side of a track, politely engaging targets and departing sedately along the same track; of course it isn’t. A complex, contested and often congested operating environment won’t allow that. It’s about blending movement, concealment, stealth, unpredictability, hidden firing locations, novel resupply mechanisms and squeezing every last drop of opportunity out of the terrain, to gain advantage, maximise lethality and ensure survivability. It’s about fighting the gun, rather than operating the gun.

Lethality – Recent, historic and ongoing conflicts remind us of the criticality of artillery and the significant weights of fire required to deliver accurate destructive and suppressive effect. At the heart of the artillery system is the gun which must provide the stable, robust, resilient, 360 degree, platform that contributes to minimising the error budget, permits reversionary firing (when primary systems malfunction) and maximises ready ammo holdings with the range of natures and fuzes required.

This is the basic requirement to allow a detachment to fight and survive and deliver lethal effect at range. Remember, artillery is a combat support function, it doesn’t get to choose when it is called on to fight; it should never be held in reserve – it is on call, 24/7, to support those closing with the enemy.

Royal Artillery battle honours tell the stories of our forebears, who on multiple occasions fought to the last man to support those in need. They fought the gun, our Colours, bravely.

Today and into the future the Gunners can only aspire to match their heroic efforts if equipped with a gun that generates that mindset, enables that passion and permits them to fight and win on a bad day in Central Europe.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

149 COMMENTS

  1. So, AH- KRAB it is then? Forbes reported that the Russians are hitting ‘predictable’ Ukrainian Krabs, M777 and M109s in significant numbers but that not a single 105mm has been hit.

    • Could be significant. 105 very small compared to anything wheeled or tracked.

      Is their 155mm artillery using the max range that they are capable of, or are they in 105 range?
      AA

      • No idea. I’m not qualified to give an informed opinion but its looks like the front lines are not too far apart. Not sure how shoot and scoot works with counter battery radar and drones. If the Ukrainians are fighting to defend their lines does pulling back to maximum range simply concede territory to advancing Russian hoards? I can see that a light gun is easier to move and hide.

        • One Ukrainian shoot & scoot that was reported. A Ukrainian citizen rang in with a report of a Russian Unit bedding down in an abandoned building. The Ukrainians sent two old, light self propelled guns. They went up a narrow forest track without being detected. Then fired a small number of shells into the Russian held building. They did not destroy the Russian unit, but they did enough damage that it was not combat ready again for many days. The Ukrainian artillery did a runner before the Russians could respond.

  2. Not sure I understand what the article is saying. The reference to crossing broken ground suggests a tracked platform. The dismissive comment on shoot and scoot implies a doubt about the wheeled systems that use this method and have limited cross country capability. And the emphasis on concealment might be taken as an argument for the retention of towed guns.

      • I’m sure he covered that when he said. “If you can’t turn on a dime, crest a knife edge, breach an obstacle, knock down trees or buildings, drive over battlefield debris then you quickly loose relevance and commanders are constrained in their flexibility of employment ….”

    • The ability to cross all ground as required by those the artillery is there to support, is the point. Meaning tracked! As well as being resupplied with as much logistical support as necessary. To include the widest possible selection of ammunition types, charges and fuses. Those vehicles must also be capable of keeping pace with the tracked artillery. Again inferring tracked. At least that is what I read into the Maj Generals words. He should have been clearer.

      He mentions 105mm light guns because there is a real need for them too. They can access places the others cannot. By that I mean mountainous terrain for example slung under helicopters. Droppable by parachute etc.

      I still believe there is room in our Boxer equipped rapid mobility force, for wheeled artillery that can keep pace. With the same mobility limits imposed by having wheels. Tracked and wheeled artillery are complimentary rather than interchangeable. It’s still a numbers game though. Having several batteries in over lapping fields of fire, enables fire support missions while one battery relocates. Artillery still rules the battlefield and tube is cheaper to support than rocket.

  3. Turning on a dime seems hard in current Archer, and even a truck system may struggle, trucks are also big. Easy to conceal might be hard for the boxer which looks about 20 foot tall.
    Survivability presumably means that a shell landing 100metres away can cause significant damage.
    Russian FPV drones and Lancets are seen hitting western armour from the top, damaging but not damaging beyond repair, so does that suggest much more armour, which potentially points to tracked ( Thunder) and ir be easy to integrate anti drone or APS on a smaller tracked vehicle.
    Large stocks of ammo and creative ways of supplying and reloading is mentioned.
    Archer only has 21 rounds? And uses a manual reload from another large truck.
    Thunder has a tracked ammo variant that loads quickly with some automation and can carry lots of ammo.
    24/7 requires manpower. 2 men in a Boxer SPG will need sleep, so does that mean separate support vehicles.
    Which option is easiest to fix?

    • My understanding is that wheeled vehicles don’t have the ability to drive the wheels forward on one side and reverse on the other, so turning effectively on the spot, although with an 8×8 where each wheel is independently driven, I don’t know why not. Yet tracked vehicles do have this ability. I think that’s the turn on a dime thing. Does anyone know if that’s true?

      • Most modern tracked vehicles can “neutral turn.” Meaning the tracks go in opposite directions spinning the vehicle on the spot. The only wheeled vehicles I know of that can do that are those little six wheel drive ATV things used by hill farmers. (Tracks can be fitted over the tyres when conditions are really bad! Tells you something.)

        If memory serves, we have/had something like that in use on ranges. Otterburn for example.

      • Jon,
        The mechanics of driving opposite wheels on the same or independent axles in opposite directions would be enormously complex for a vehicle the size of an Archer. Most tracked vehicles can either “pivot” turn or “neutral” turn (slightly different mechanical systems but same result), hence turning in their own length.

  4. Hmmm the author works for the company that’s pitching The K9…the Army are about to test a 127mm gun on a autonomous wheeled platform that will use the same ammo as the navy and also take a 105mm for a light weight option.

    • Do you have link on that, funnily it kind of makes some sense. Then again so did BAe when they tried to get the RN to adapt a 155mm to replace the 4.5” MK8.

      • What’s your take on the 155mm option with respect to the old tried and tested 4.5mm Mk8 OR the planned US 5 inch MK38 system for the RN?

        The logistical benefit from RN and RA using the same 155mm ammunition types, makes sense to me. It packs a bigger punch and could justify increasing our manufacturing capacity. I’ve never experience a naval bombardment but I have the 155. It’s impressive and very reassuring to have it there on demand.

        It must be risky bringing a destroyer or frigate close inshore. Images of San Carlos Water and bomb alley come to mind.

        • Both 5″ (127mm) and 155mm can fire rocket assisted shells. These can travel between 55 to 70km. So basically firing from behind the horizon. Much safer than running the gun line where everyone can see you!

        • Sorry for the delay in answering. I actually think it’s time has come and someone needs to go for it, we aren’t the only country that has played with the idea Germany actually mounted a Pzh 2000 on a Frigate. It worked fine but would require an awful lot of work and money to modify it for Naval use.

          So a purpose built 155mm Naval mount would be suggestion.

          I don’t see the sense in going for 127mm when the entire Western World is trying build as many 155mm shells as possible.

          As for the 105mm I’d actually look at a high mobility version like the US M10 Booker, which is like our Ajax based on the ASCOD hull.

    • 127mm sounds like a logistical nightmare. Great if the Navy have it but far better to have the same ammunition as our NATO allies in the land domain. Even 105mm is a bit niche.

      • Yes, 155mm for every navy and army in NATO, makes perfect sense. But failing that, commonality with the US Navy using the BAE 127mm naval guns is the next best thing. Given the precarious state of the geopolitical pressure cooker. It’s just as likely that our armed forces will be deployed supporting Australia, Taiwan, Japan and the US. Possibly Canada and New Zealand too if their Five Eyes chains get pulled.

        Keeping solidarity (commonality in this case) with our anglosphere cousins should be HM GOVs primary concern, at least when it comes to alliances. Remember to raise a glass in salute on 25th April for ANZAC Day. The most loyal of British Allies. AUKUS and submarines are just the latest chapter.

        • oh and the USA , and Australia the special 105mm a diffrent barrel i admit. Who uses 127mm? Top of my head I can name any one who uses it on land?

          • Oh, yes on land nobody uses it that is correct, but my point was more that it is a widely used naval calibre and therefore there are plenty of places to source shells from. Australia, Denmark, Greece, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, the US, Italy and the Netherlands all use it, with the UK and Canada to follow.

        • 105mm has been a NATO standard calibre, probably since NATO was founded in 1949. Why do you think 105mm is a special British calibre?

          The rifled 105mm tank round is defined by STANAG 4458. The 105mm artillery round is defined by AOP-29 part 3 with reference to STANAG 4425.

          Canada, Turkey, Italy and France have 105mm artillery in addition to the UK.
          France (AMX30) and the USA (Booker) operate tanks with 105mm cannon

          • My understanding is that the L118 light gun (as well as the long gone Abbot 105mm SPG) were designed to use what is called “105mm Field” ammunition which was developed specifically for those projects. This differs from the more common US pattern 105mm ammunition in that the shell is slightly longer and is loaded into the gun separately from its propellant cartridge. Presumably, this was done for a multitude of good reasons at a time when the British Army was large enough and supported by a powerful enough industrial base to support bespoke ammunition.

            That is what primarily diferrentiates the L118 from the more widely exported L119/M119 in that the latter is designed to use the American style ammunition, known as “105mm How” in British service. The theory that L118 ammunition production is a point of concern seems to be supported by the fact that all the light guns supplied to Ukraine by Britain and the US have been of the L119/M119 variety.

            As for rifled 105mm tank rounds, that is of course a NATO standard although again there are examples of deviation from the standard such as the 105mm rifled gun fitted to the AMX10-RC which uses shorter proprietary French ammuniton.

          • Daniel, OK, thanks. I am not an ammunition buff. As well as calibres being NATO standards, then so is breech chamber size, although that may be a more recent standardisation.

    • The issue with a 127mm gun is the ammo. Currently it is fixed charge, as opposed to the variable charge systems of the 105mm systems (L118/M119) and 155mm systems.
      Basically a fixed charge is the ammo comes ready to fire and it is loaded straight into the gun. This makes auto loading systems simple and allows for very rapid fire, important for Naval guns BUT to change the range you have to elevate the gun.
      A variable charge system is more useful for land. It enables different ranges to be fired at while keeping the gun at a lower elevation, which is extremely important at reducing and minimizing radar detection. Further it allows a variable charge system to “creep” fire on to a reserve slope.

      So anyone that thinks that the 127mm gun can go straight into land service is wrong, basically they would need a totally new type of ammo.

      Further why do you want a 127mm round? the 105mm system, used by the L118/M119 gun in US/UK service is still the worlds best system for supporting dismounted infantry in disruptive terrain.

      To support an infantry company assault on to an enemy pl position , say 90 minutes long (45 mins planning, 45 minutes assault and fight through) a bty of 6x 105mm guns will fire about 1020 rounds. At 15kg each this is about 11,600kg, or 24 ammo pallets – so 6 medium trucks with 6x trailers are required to support.

      For a 127mm system a Bty of 6 guns will fire 1020 rounds. At 30kg each this will weigh 23,200Kg, and as the round is alot bigger more than 48 pallets of ammo, at least 12 trucks with trailers.

      For the army a 127mm as a replacement for the 105mm makes no sense, nor for the 155mm.

  5. There needs to be an urgent review of the UK’s artillery needs to be backed up with a fast procurement programme. The RA has been treated like a poor relation for too long and the Ukraine War has clearly demonstrated just how precise and lethal modern artillery is performing. We may bang on about the lack of CH3 hulls but the emphasis needs to be focused on artillery to back up the loss of MBT numbers.

    • Doesn’t really matter if you have a bunch of tubes if there isn’t enough ammo to use them. The west still hasn’t fixed the 155mm ammo shortage problem.

      A western country needs to step back to 1930 and make all the nitrocellulose components domestically. It has been outsourced to India and China by everyone, the USA has one very small plant left.

      • India, a staunch Russian ally & defence collaborator, but China? Like as though in 1939 we were relying on Nazi Germany or Japan for ammo. It does seem sometimes the first qualification for UK defence management is insanity.

        • Calling India a staunch Russian ally is grossly misrepresenting the situation. The Indians are more than happy to work with either side depending on who’s willing to give them what; the Russians are a cheap and eager collaborator in most areas where the West tends to refuse, e.g. nuclear submarines.

          Politically? Russia is allied with China, India’s biggest rival and threat. Economically? India makes far more money out of the US and Europe than it does Russia.

        • How many times have I suggested over the years we get into bed with SK on many fronts?
          8 February 2024South Korea to mass produce extended-range projectiles for K9 howitzers
          “South Korean metal and munition manufacturer Poongsan will initiate the mass production of the extended-range 155 mm artillery shells for the Hanwha Land Systems K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzers (SPHs) in 2024, a Poongsan official told Janes on 8 February.

          Development and trials of the extended-range 155 mm shells were completed in 2023 and the company received a combat suitability certificate from the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) in July 2023, the official said.

          The combat suitability certificate is required to initiate the mass production of any platform, equipment, or weapon in the South Korean defence procurement process.

          DAPA ordered 2,000 extended-range 155 mm shells in 2023, which will be produced and delivered by the end of 2024, the official added.

          “DAPA will also sign another contract with Poongsan later this year to procure additional shells and these additional shells will be manufactured in 2025,” the official said.

          Poongsan started designing the 155 mm extended range munition (ERM) in 2014, and research and development (R&D) began in 2017.

          The 155 mm ERM has a maximum strike range of 60 km, a 50% increase in range compared with the company’s earlier K307 base burn/high explosive (BB/HE) shell, Janes said earlier.
          According to Janes Land Warfare Platforms: Artillery & Air Defence,the standard conventional round for the K9 is the M107 HE round, which is manufactured by Hanwha under licence from General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems in the United States.”

          Courtesy Of Janes Defence

          https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/south-korea-to-mass-produce-extended-range-projectiles-for-k9-howitzers

      • Supply may be a short-term issue and one that needs to be addressed but not at the expense of procuring new guns.

        • Wheeled artillery production is at a rate of 80 per years in France, stil on the rise. This shortage is serious, we want to exceed Russia capabilities. I hope other countries will do the same and that we will all stick to 155 caliber, since commonality is so important in war. The 105mm is good is well, but for shorter range we tend to prefer mortar rounds of 120, less noisy, preferable for acoustic detection at shorter range.

      • Factories do exist for nitrocellulose in Sweeden and a new factory will be ready in France in 2025. I think factories do exist rapidly expanding in Germany.

      • Yes true, but we can not make headway on the RA’s needs by clouding the issue with other force needs, which may be why it’s in the mess it finds itself?

      • Blair’s first SDSR is to be commended in this regard – it was non-Treasury led. Such a breath of fresh air. Not everyone liked everything that was in it but at least it was foreign policy led.

        • As he is one of Starmers key advisors, ( supposedly) hopefully he will impress on him the importance of defence in the current climate.

          • They funded it better than ever the Tory’s have. The Cameron/Osborne version has been an absolute disaster for Defence.

          • Yep, Cameron Osborne were indeed a disaster, and the Tories have caused great damage. But saying Labour funded defence “better” Errrrrr, no.
            AS90 update cancelled.
            FRES cancelled.
            MIV cancelled. ( original Boxer )
            TRACER cancelled.
            13 years of going round in circles with Titan, Trojan, Terrier the only armoured vehicles bought outside panicked UORs in Labour’s time in power.
            No Challenger updates, no Warrior updates, no CVRT replacement, zilch.
            All left to now when all the army capitalisation projects are underway at once as while Europe was buying wheeled IFV APC the British Army was stuck in limbo.
            12 SSN cut to 7, 35 RN escorts to 23, 23 fast jet Sqns across the RAF/FAA reduced to 12, Tanks and artillery cut.
            SABR cancelled saving G Brown a few billion, VC10, Tristar replaced by PPP Voyager to keep the costs of outright purchase off the books. DERA and DRA mostly privatised.
            Bases closed left right and centre.
            I could go into far greater detail.
            Oh yes, Labour funded defence all right.

            Both parties are as bad as the other. The same cries of frustration and despair were seen from posters on defence sites from 97 to 2010 as we have now. I know, I was one of them. UK Defence Management. Com was the site at the time. Some posters here were on that like myself.

            I’m expecting no different when the current Labour incarnation take the reigns in a few months.

          • SDR98? I’ve just checked and all equipments mentioned that were to be procured, were actually procured, including those two shiny carriers.
            So the funding must have been there, even if a lot of it was ‘generated’ by closing out or reducing sunset capabilities.

          • Sunset 🙄
            Yes, but the force size went to the wall and carried on dropping in the next review on 04 and up to 2010 when things got even worse.
            The “good” if there was one in that review was that it did seem to be properly planned and not treasury led.
            But, we had one two years before in 95, so why did they have to start cutting.

          • Sorry to use the semi-political term ‘sunset’. In the 1998 SDR:

            RN/RFA lost: 3 DD/FF; 3 MCMVs; 2 SSNs – but gained confirmation of order of 2 CVF, 6 Points, gained TLAM capability on all SSNs.
            RAF did lose 36 fast jets (a lot), but EFA was confirmed, 4 C-17s were aquired by leasing and Meteor, Brimstone and Storm Shadow were green-lit.
            Army had to merge 24 and 5 Bde to create 16 AA Bde. Field Force totalled three armoured bdes, three mech bdes, and 16x. Apache order for 67 units was confirmed. TA was reduced but modernised. 8 T38 armoured regiments reorg’d to 6 T58 regiments. No cuts to reg numbers(?)
            Joint. JNBC Regt was created. JRRF created. GBAD Command formed.

            I was at Andover and involved in implementing the REME changes. I was fairly content with the way the Review was conducted – HMT were kept out of it until the final stages.

            Certainly there were more cuts in later years in future Defence reviews – ’twas ever thus’.

          • Yes, the army was at its zenith post cold war then, 6 proper Bdes.
            24 and 5 merging I supported at the time.
            JRRF created was spin as the JRDF already existed. Same units different name. Defence of the Realm tv series had an episode on the Pathfinders when Portillo was DS and Churchills grandson was a defence minister, and he talks of the JRDF.
            GBAD command formed yet it’s 7 Regiments then cut to 2 over the next years

          • Thanks mate. I too had no issues with 24 and 5 Bdes merging – at least AM/AB capability was preserved and related Apache was green-lit.

            Sounds like we agree that Blair’s 1998 SDR was at least logical, foreign policy-led, rather than HMT-led and did not scrap too much whilst creating or green lighting new capabilities… then of course I am sure we agree that subsequent Defence Reviews were less palatable and were simply massive cuts dictated by the Treasury.

          • Yes mate, I believe it in itself was well planned and thought out. It didn’t last, sadly.

          • No Defence Review lasts more than 4 or 5 years, until being replaced by another one.

    • As I understand things, we have had a ‘funding line’ for a RA refresh (some £850 million?) on new equipment for a while now. If correct, I am not entirely sure why the RA haven’t gone and purchased some of their requirements to modernise their existing equipment holdings already?

      Whats also a tad unclear is if the monies quoted is just for a AS90 replacement, or has to be spread across more requirements ie – SPH/Towed/Rockets and various forms of SHORAD?

      • There appears to be a lot of talk about AS90 replacement but not much to show for it. 179 guns were purchased and over the years the fleet has dwindled to a point of insignificance. Having witnessed this gun in action it did not demonstrate to me that it was inadequate hitting distant targets consistently. Sadly, another British product appears to be replaced by a foreign machine but if so, sooner than later.

        • Notwithstanding the fact that AS90 has had relatively few upgrades over its life, believe that the reason we want a new gun is more to the fact that it is out-ranged by 52calibre howitzers, which most of our competitors posses.

          • If we had done the AS-90 Braveheart upgrade to 52-cal, then we may well find it soldiering on for another 10 or more years.

          • Will never understand why we didn’t press ahead with that. Seems to be a running theme that we come up with great kit then it isn’t upgraded, Challenger 2 is in the same category.

          • It was said that the Braveheart ammunition that was sourced from South Africa did not meet the new Insensitive Munitions criteria – no idea why we didn’t source IM ammo from elsewhere. More to this saga than meets the eye.

            We used to constantly upgrade kit significantly and issue a new Mark number – Chieftain is a great example – see the Wiki entry. Since the early 80s very few AFVs and artillery pieces got significant upgrades. It is puzzling.

          • Ah, I wasn’t aware of the ammunition issue.

            Chieftain finished on Mk12 from memory, with Mk13 planned but cancelled due to Challenger 1.

  7. I’m curious to know whether the Ukrainians prefer wheeled or tracked SPG’s, if anyone knows on here I’d love to here that.

  8. While the whole “bad day in central Europe” is used to neat narrative effect, to me it doesn’t seem consistent with the piece in general. The point that fires need to be able to take advantage on any and all terrains suggests that we don’t just need to think about a bad day in Central Europe; we also need to think about a scorching day in the Sahara, a freezing day crossing lakes in Finland, a humid day penetrating jungle in Central America and barreling down a hard plain on a good day in Central Europe too.

    I assume this was merely “wheels bad, tracks good” rhetoric, to bring mud to mind. Nevertheless, if we only plan to fight in Central Europe, Sod’s Law states that another Falklands or Afghanistan will take the British Army somewhere very different.

  9. The author that is pitching the k9 wrote the article.
    Mmmmm…so obviously he is saying its essential for artillery to do exactly what the K9 does.

    Just how bad is an 8 wheeler in the mud? Qualify “how much mud”. If its as thick as we are all thinking, then almost nothing will move through it. No good sending tanks and tracked artillery through if nothing else can follow.

    The reason most wheeled vehicles do not have “tank” steering is excessive length of track (wheelbase) on the ground..an Alvis Stalwart size vehicle might be ok, but not something as long as an extended 4+2 or a 4+4. The Terrapin was probably the only large vehicle to have tank steering in the British Army (ww2 amphib, look it up!)

    How about a more radical solution. MLRS for longer range fires, 105mm/supacat for shorter ranges. Get in close, nimble your way out. Light, fast, AGILE, air portable(?)

    AA

    • Thanks for the explanation of why not tank steering for wheeled. I’m not 100% convinced that a solution isn’t possible, but it’s good to know.

      Talking of good to know. We now have prototypes for two vehicles of almost identical weight and almost identical engines, Ajax being tracked and Boxer being wheeled. We don’t need to guess at how well modern wheeled vehicles can do in mud compared to tracked. We can test it and ask ourselves how likely is it that the conditions that tracked can handle and wheeled can’t are likely to occur and compare that with the self-deployment and other advantages of wheeled.

      A serious question: why are we still arguing the point when we can know?

  10. I sometimes wonder if defence procurement is run by former PC builders.
    There’s always some new feature just around the corner, let’s hold off for a while and have another technology review.

  12. Agreed I just worry an all wheeled option may be picked. Bad idea but the choice is for others to make. Fully tracked and wheeled would be good, not sure what replaces the old out ranged light gun though. M777 has the range etc but its easy to find and knock out, slowing to action and out of action.
    As a ex Gunner i’d like to see Wheeled 155mm on the boxer or more Archer and may be PZ2000.
    105mm lacks range, Ammo types and is towed. Good for difficult terrain Afghan/Artic/ Jungle, though on an open battle field its out classed.

    • Think it’s wise to have mixed Track and wheeled ,like you say tow Artillery platforms has it’s users depending on the Battlefield situation .But can the UK afford both types ? Good post mate 👍 🇬🇧

      • This it it, money decides, be best to have a mix, What systems are open to debat but if me i would go for Archer as we already have it and Pz2000 as it works well under strain,, but i have a feeling that the Boxer option will get picked for good reasons but not sure its best its massive, not that stable and lacks rounds as carries not many. And its top heavy bad for cross country

        • Archer is a good platform and like you say we already have it ,heard good reports about the Pz2000 but can’t see UK going for that platform.As ever wait and see what we end up with ,personally not to sure about the Boxer as an Artillery system 👍

          • Boxer would make sense as we already have it, etc but it looks unstable, big and top heavy and I doubt its great cross country off main tracks. PZ2000 would be ideal with Archer but like always the UK will go for a cheap fudge that cost loads later. And not buy in the numbers we really need.
            No idea what will replace the light gun, nothing on the market as easy to move by helicopter the M777 is not that light and time in and out of action is long.

          • Think there’s talk of Replacing 105mm light gun with some mortar system at the moment, for the M777 good Artillery platform but logistics weight etc and nowadays easy target sadly .👍

          • No we do get a great deal on over priced stuff. Almost as if we are being ripped off. Poor value for money and it not as if the kit we get is always the best in world its more like what we can afford at the time.

          • Pz2000 is only 6 years newer than AS90 at inception.

            If we had done the Braveheart upgrade and other upgrades as and when necessary, then AS90 Braveheart+ would be about the same as Pz2000.

          • Agreed but we half arsed up graded it and then not all of them. The un up graded were then left to rot. AS90 if longer range and Auto loader would be better than Pz2000

          • ???
            We did not do the Braveheart upgrade on 96 of the 179 SPGs in 2003, as had been planned and contracted for.
            To add insult to injury, the active fleet was reduced by 40% by Cameron’s savage 2010 defence cuts.
            Active list AS90s have still not been significantly upgraded since their first fielding in 1992.

            Not sure an autoloader was a necessary element of an upgrade. AS90 can still shoot 3 shells in 10 seconds (burst fire) with their very strong and capable human loader – better than a K9 Thunder which takes 15 seconds to do the same.

          • A90 replaced the M107/M110A2 one which out ranged it by far and the other out ranged with rocket ammo. We got rid of the M109s that the USA still has and has up graded many times and is better then AS90 Braveheart. I’m sorry but this happened because those in the top of the Artillery wanted it/let it.
            They are the ones who disbanded 2 MLRS regts, Re rolled another then had coble togeather what was left out of the 62 (18 were missing, scrapped, converted) MLRS we had in the as Binary Regt?
            The reduction in numbers was an excuss to save money but really HQDRA have a lot to answer for.
            aND AN AUTO LOADER WAS MY OPTION TO REDUCE CREW AND THERE FOR RUNING COCST AND SVE MAN POWER

          • Hi Martin,

            AS-90 is Close Support artillery and as such replaced Abbot, M109A1/A2/A3 and M110A1 from 1992.
            It was MLRS, as Depth artillery (or ‘Deep Fires’ to use the latest silly US jargon), that replaced M107; of course M107 outranged AS-90 as the former was ‘Depth’ and the latter was ‘Close’.

            AS-90 was far superior to the three equipments it replaced as you would expect, in a multitude of ways. Its range of 24.7km with standard proj was better than the M109 with standard proj (just 18.1km) and better than M109 with the RAP proj (just 23.5km).
            AS-90 with RAP had a range of 30km, so that bested the US equipment.
            So I am not sure why you think AS-90 had a shorter range.

            AS90 Braveheart would have to be compared to the equipment available at the time of its intended introduction to service, ie M109A6 Paladin.
            Braveheart range would be 40km+ with standard proj and Paladin still with an outdated 39 cal barrel has a range of just 21km (still only 30km with RAP) – half the distance using standard proj, quite pathetic.

            The MoD did not upgrade AS90 to Braveheart, and in fact did virtually no upgrades to the system at all (perhaps just replaced Clansman with Bowman!). If we had kept the M109 do you really think the MoD would have upgraded them to the M109A4 then to A5 then to A5+ then to A6 Paladin? Each time sending the equipments back to the USA? To end up with something with half the range of a AS-90 Braveheart? Why do you think Paladin is better than Braveheart?

            Even the M109A7 (latest version) still only has a 39 cal barrel.

            This post has just looked at Range. Happy to discuss other factors.

          • where did you get the range of 40km for AS90 Brave heart? AS90 replaced a lot but because its been left to grow old its no better than M109 A. MLRS was brought in as depth fire and at the time could only fire M77/AT2 ammo types which are useless at dug in troops. MLRS is now still depth fire and used to target long range high value targets,
            I worked on M107 then 110A2 then MLRS. How much would cost to have up graded M109 rather than bring in a whole new gun system. Why were 18 MLRS struck off strengh of which 6 converted to REME vehicles as massive cost. Only for us to now have to buy back old stored vehicles to then be up graded to A2 standard. £250 million wasted on BATES that the DRA/CRA etc demanded it work and it was push in to service the problem with Artillery lies at their door.
            Every thing we buy we let get old, run down, out of date.
            39 Regt only had enough equipment to fill two batterys, one btys, when with out and equipment was signed over on rotation i know i served there.
            Poor management, consistent disbandments, re roles. Lack of whole fleet up grades. The top brass caused this with trinkering all the time.

          • So you think the UK 39 cal barrel can fire that fare, may be the trial 52cal barrel did, but not the one we have in service, hence why the gun is out ranged in combat.

          • No. I did not say that. We were both talking about the Braveheart gun. My reference (www.army-technology) talks of the 52-cal Braveheart barrel firing that far. The original and still in-service 39-cal barrel can shoot out to 24.7km.

            You talk of combat. Which ‘enemy’ artillery equipments outrange AS-90? In Ukraine, AS-90 is pitched against 2S1 (range is a mere 15.3km)…and the 2S3 (range is a mere 18.3km).
            To my maths, AS-90 outranges them both by a considerable margin.

          • 2S35, 2S19 Msta-S, and their towed 152mm. To name but a few. How many arty bits of equipment have you crewed or fired or trialed or instructed on?

          • 2S19 Msta surely has a range exactly the same as AS-90 (24.7km) with a standard shell. D-20 Towed 152mm Howitzwer has a shorter range than AS-90 (17.4km) with a standard shell. Why do you think they outrange AS-90?

            Rather unfair to compare AS-90 (ISD 1992) with 2S35 (handful of pre-production experimental versions first fielded in late Dec 2023) which is 30 years newer.

            Not sure why you ask, but I have not crewed, fired, trialled or instructed on any arty kit. Have you? If so, why are you making so many errors of fact? About the AS-90 Braveheart upgrade you said ‘ we half arsed up graded it and then not all of them. The un up graded were then left to rot.’ That was not correct; no AS-90s were upgraded to Braveheart spec.

            Th Ukrainians are very impressed with the AS-90 – particularly its burst fire capability and accuracy – and I have no reports that they consider its 24.7km range is a huge hindrance; they have many artillery pieces with less range than that from standard shells.

          • Firstly you are wrong about the numbers of out ranging Russian guns in service. Second even the UK defence Committee state the AS90 is out ranged.
            Braveheart was a non programme that lead to nothing and still to this day many mis name the 39Cal barrel as Braveheart. Do not mis understand AS90 is a very good gun, its range is well behind most other 52 Cal SP Guns, its in/out action time time is not fast.
            A great gun ruined by lack of investment.
            And the follow out range it 2S19 Msta-S 28 km Base Bleed 36km rocket assisted and the Msta-K 40 km with new barrel,

          • Thanks Martin.
            Not sure where I am wrong as you give no details, but I have been comparing like with like, standard ‘British’ shells against standard Russian shells, not standard AS-90 shells against Russian BB, ERA, RAP shells, as some do. Not sure if the Ukrainians have RAP shells for their AS-90s but that would increase range from 24.7km to 30km.

            I am not one of those who mistakenly refer to the standard original 39-cal AS-90 as ‘Braveheart’ but I know some others do. We both know that Braveheart is the upgrade that was planned but never happened and included amongst other things, the 52-cal barrel.

            Of course the range of the AS-90 with its 39-cal barrel is less than that of SPGs with a 52-cal barrel. That’s why the AS-90 should have had a 52-cal barrel at the turn of the century ie the Braveheart programme. I certainly agree that there has been under-investment, like so many of our AFVs that were denied not just one but several major upgrades.

            We have badly under-invested in artillery (and also have no heavy mortars). Perhaps the MLRS story is the only one with a few glimmers of light.

          • MLRS is a programme that after scraping/loosing 10 and convert 4/6 the REME vehicles is going the right way now. Only worry for me is the amount of ammo all these MLRS will need. I would think in war we might be out of Ammo in less than 2 weeks.
            MLRS can do lots is great, long ranged, etc but tube Artillery will always decide the contact battle. And we do not have enough and likely again a pitiful reserve of Ammo.
            I am deeply interested to see what the UK decides on, Will it be a mis match of 3 systems, or the cheapest. And when will it enter service? and the numbers we buy?
            Its already taken 2 years with nothing to show and seems some in the Army are just dragging it out.

          • I was interested to hear from you about the conversion of a number of MLRS launcers to a REME role, particularly as I am ex-REME – I wish there was a better way to give REME a suitable support vehicle rather than to lose some launchers.

            Army staff would have been thinking about rocket resupply from well before MLRS was first fielded as part of the ILS discipline. Has the experience of the Russia-Ukraine war suggested that calculations need revising dramatically upwards?

            I don’t know enough about current ammunition stocks (probably highly classified info) or the speed at which Industry could produce ammo for tube and rocket artillery – to know if we have a real problem, but I suspect you are right.

            We have always had multiple types of artillery system – when I joined the army we had Oto Melara Pack Howitzer, RO Lt Gun, Abbot, M109, M107, 8″ howitzer and FH70!

          • Does seem a waste to convert MLRS to a REME vehicle, when likely a Warrior REME vehicle would have done and was what the REME asked for. As always the UK takes the most expensive route.
            And yes when i joined we had all those in service M109/Abbot/Light gun/M107/M110. Armies tend to want a small pool of vehicle type now for good reason and both 175mm/203mm Ammo is no longer used by nearly all NATO countries.

          • What did REME use in an AS-90 Bty Fitter Section before they got these converted MLRS launcher vehicles? Although I was REME, I was not overly familiar with tthose REME units.
            I would have thought there were many Warrior FV512 (Fitter/Repair) vehicles that could have been made available given the reduction in AI Bns over the years. I seem to remember they might have had CRARRV rather than FV513 (Recovery), given the weight of AS-90?

          • My mistake, the converted MLRSA were used by REME Fitter sections in MLRS Regts I understand 6 were converted with more planed once the MLRS are up graded to A2 standard. £2.2 million to buy an MLRS then untold £ millions to convert them. A very daft idea. Now the UK has buy more to replace the converted ones and convert more.

          • An absolutely ridiculous state of affairs. Bty Ftr sects should have used WR FV512 or FV434.

          • WR FV 512 was chosen then who ever stepped in and said no, we will convert 4/6 MLRS to the role. i dread to think how much that cost. What a stupid expensive waste

          • You say AS-90 in/out action time is not fast.
            I am happy to be corrected but Wiki (my only available source on the subject) says it is less than a minute. Assuming it is 50 seconds, then AS-90 can get into action and then fire 3 rds at burst rate in total of 1 min. For a gun first fielded in 1992, that is not too shabby. Which SPGs do much better than that?

          • No its good for the day, when it first entered service best in the world, And Archer is faster, just. AS90 if fully up graded would still be top 2/3 SP Guns in the world.
            Why it was reduced in numbers and left to get old is beyond me, Poor move by HQ DRA.

          • The reduction down from 179 AS-90 guns being reduced by 35%, to c.115 was nothing to do with HQ DRA. It was a defence cut (SDSR 2010) forced by politicians in the wake of the global financial recession and the Con-Lib coalition’s austerity drive.
            As mentioned before, I cannot understand why the Braveheart programme did not continue with an approved IM propellant or why there weren’t any other significant upgrades in its 30 year life.

            CR2 active list numbers came down by c.40% from 386 tanks to 227 tanks.

          • Fair comment I just dis like HQ DRA, fore ever messing about with the RA’s structure and Regts with very little to show for it.
            And its HQ DRA who should pushed for up grades to AS90 as you said if the users were asking for up grades its likely it may happened.

          • It would be impossible for me to conceive of an Arms/Service Direcor and his staff lobbying to have fewer assets!
            Totally agree that continuous meddling with Orbats often does not help and can set back. HQ DRA represent the RA user (in fact is ‘the User’) and would have first raised the case for AS-90 upgrade back in the day – the Requirements Manager may even have been a DRA staff officer. But then other folk join in the process – DPA and DLO as it was then (now DE&S), civil servants,Treasury, politicians, Industry. Any one of those not on the same page can scupper an upgrade or new equipment.

            But DRA should have charged through and influenced throughout the Braveheart design, development and testing process. The stumbling block of the South African propellant not being IM should have been solved – different formulation or different supplier. More to the cancellation of Braveheart upgrade than meets the eye, I suspect.

          • Ture no one knows may be the real reason but it was a lost chance and would have been cheaper than buy new Guns now.

          • AS90 has not moved on from its 1992 origins and performance level. That is shameful. Upgrades (not just Braveheart) were required but were not delivered. Prior to 1992, we had the latest M109, but AS-90 was better in virtually every regard, and that was why it was introduced.

            I have no idea about the MLRS or BATES issues you describe. Shameful again.

          • Just as the RA had a whole fleet of Boughtion limber vehicles that sat and rooted in a field in larkhill brand new as the maker refused to fix issues with them, the same as the Panther light armoured vehicle sold at knock down prices a few years after entering service. All that money could have up date AS90. Who is to blame the MOD or the idiots that wanted these vehicle brought in to service.
            I think many of the RA’s poor equipment issues are or were closer to home, ie HQ DRA

          • Thanks Martin. I had not heard about the Boughton limber veh issue. Sounds also, like you think we should not have procured that or Panther FCLV.
            Some of these procurement cock-ups are horrendous.

            Quite shocking if blame for RA cock-ups is down to HQ DRA.

          • It can not all be MODs fault, Those in charge ask for or suggest the kit to get, or not to get. Then they tinker with orbats/regts mess that up and have sort it out a few years later and ask for kit that is not needed. HQ DRA has to take some of the blame.
            They decide the role/format of the Artillery and they keep changing it and buggering it up, Its an excuss to blame MOD. Some at the top over the years have a lot to answer for, shame on them.

          • So true. Another example. The MIV programme sought to source two brigades worth of kit for the Mechanised Infantry in the two Strike brigades. Upgraded Warrior was going to the two armoured brigades to replace in-service WR.
            Then the army deleted the Strike brigades in an ORBAT change, so the Boxers were switched in to the armoured brigades – and the beancounters were delighted to cancel upgraded Warrior.

            End result – we have fewer troops overall under armoured protection and the armoured brigades have a wheeled APC not a tracked cannon-equipped IFV.

          • Its not the bean counters fault its the Army generals fault, they do orbts not the MOD, we all fail to see some of the mess the top brass have made, let alone the MOD. Its smoke and mirrors by poor leaders to hide there f up’s.
            Did the MOD make the Army refuse the L2 or Abrams no we trialed it said no thanks, They are both in service world wide and up graded why we went through Chieftain C1 and C2. Why because some the Army said we want a rifled gun, not the MOD the Army,
            Old men stuck in their ways, stubborn with lack of fore sight.

          • Procurement fails are the fault of many categories of people, not just the senior officer who wants to make his mark and change the ORBAT.
            I don’t think Daniele would agree that we do not see the mess the top brass have made with Orbats over the years – these do get published.

            In terms of foreign kit, ATDU assessed Leo2, M1 Abrams and Leclerc. Lt Col Stuart Crawford who contributes to these pages has repeatedly said that the army wanted Leo2 and were more than happy with its smoothbore gun. I don’t think anyone in the RAC was obsessed with keeping a rifled gun, however beancounters wanted the army to use up existing rifled ammunition stocks which were considerable – that may or may not have been a factor in the selection process. There were M1 Abrams detractors who criticised its excessive fuel consumption and high maintenance burden.

            Politicians selected CR2.

            CR2 did not get significantly upgraded from 1998 to now. If we had bought a foreign tank such as Leo2, that too would almost certainly not have been upgraded, notwithstanding that the manufacturer offered upgrades. It would be the wrong choice to not upgrade, of course. But there is a sad track record going back 20 years of our AFVs not being majorly upgraded – its very hard to explain or excuse this.

            There aren’t really any old men in the army – CGS is usually 54-55 yrs old on appointment. DRAC would be in his mid-late 40s.

          • Leo 2 was rejected , so it ok for an old near retirement guy to bend the truth but ask him why it ask rejected, hind sight weak area in armour. And yes ever army u grades kit apart from us because just make do and mend with the stuff we have,
            Rifled can not fire HESH, due to spin imparted to the round, I like it on here so many experts in an arm chair. C2 was a political buy. to keep the industry open. We never up grade kit because never have the money.
            Obats formation changes are a fudge to balance numbers disband re role 3 MLRS Regts to only have have convert 2 AS90 Regts to MLRS later what a joke. And if the General reads this good, he should get a grip the Army is being made to look crap, run down and mis managed. its an insult to those that have and do serve we look a joke,

          • The Chieftain replacement competition was so-called because it sought to phase out the half-fleet of Chieftain that soldiered on with CR1s from 1983. Not much gets into the public domain as to why bids were rejected.
            M1 Abrams evaluation. I understand that Abrams was rejected for its poor fuel consumption that would have caused us to dramatically increase our logistics effort including buying many more fuel trucks and crewing them – it didn’t even have an APU, so battery charging on Silent Watch had to be done by running the Gas Turbine very inefficiently at low revs.
            Leo 2 evaluation. The UK passed Germany the secrets of Burlington armour in the mid-70s. The UK evaluation was done in 1989 and the Leo was probably a standard A4 with a hull of spaced multilayer armour. “During the 1980s, it was estimated that the Leopard 2’s front would resist 125 mm APFSDS rounds fired from a distance of 1,500 m – Wiki”. I therefore doubt the German tank was eliminated on the grounds of inadequate protection. I am fairly sure it passed on technical grounds. More likely that it was rejected because it was German and UK Industry was offering a British product. So I fully agree that CR2 was a political purchase, but of course it more than met the Requirement.

            We have nit been doing major upgrades on AFVs, as we used to, because of money but also because no-one on the army staff don’t push it hard enough or sell the proposal well enough.

            Orbat changes have been a joke. AS-90 is Close Support artillery and MLRS is Depth. It makes little logical sense to replace AS-90 regts by MLRS. Both have their role and place and bthe are required in quantity – they should not be ;in competition’ with each other.

            I agree that the army is in a complete mess in almost every way.

          • I heard and have done my best to check, the Leo 2 was wanted by the army but a weak spot in the armour where the main sight reses is was a concern.
            We both agree the major fault in the UK armed forces, but more so the Army is no one seems to be interested in up dating kit, or if they are no one high up is listening.
            Frustrating mess its all become over the past 25 years. Up grading nothing always cost more as we have make new kit and that cost and takes ages.

          • Thanks Martin. I am surprised that the info about a weakness in a very specific part of Leo2A4’sarmour has been revelaed in Open Source. Lt Col Stuart Crawford in his many posts and articles to UKDJ gave no indication that Leo2 had been rejected on technical reasons, and was involved in the assessment.

            I find the lack of significant upgrades to army equipment over the last 20 years or so, in particular AFVs and artillery systems, to be totally baffling. The RN and RAF would not fail to upgrade ships and aircraft.

          • So he agrees on that fact? Yes we get some of the best kit , yes a bit basic not as fancy as other then we let get old. A very strange and wasteful thing to do. Does show poor planing and leadership at the top of the Army over time. Very sad state of affairs.

          • C2 is/was limited by the two piece ammo and the size of the ammo storage, it can not fit/fire the latest APFSDS rounds at the DU Rod is too long, though C3 is changing to one piece ammo,
            And yes Abrams was rejected because its to logistic heavy as it 1500hp turbine drinks fuel, plus has a massive heat signature.

          • Yes, I know that. Braveheart was cancelled because the propellant was not IM. I cannot understand why MoD did not choose an alternative propellant supplier…unless there were other reasons to cancel the upgrade.

          • Always other hidden reasons, but yes why not get propellant from some where else. If the AS90 had a 52cal barrel etc it would not need replacing. Strange how retired officers end up working for defence companies?
            A lot goes on that we never hear about but the Braveheart cancellation was strange, as it was needed and worked to a degree.

          • Depends on the weapon system it carries. The current Boxer RCH155 is based on the turret system of the Pz2000. It is fully automated and carries 30 shells. But its height is 3.60m tall. Which means it can just about fit in an A400M at 3.85m. But if anything is fitted to the RCH’s roof, it will need to be removed before embarking. Then refitting after disembarking.

            However, there might be another option. Archer has shown that it is platform agnostic. In that it has been fitted to the Volvo 6×6 articulated truck and two versions of MAN HX 8×8 and 10×10 chassis. So in theory, fitting it to Boxer, could be a considered option (certainly lower than a Boxer RCH).

            There have been a number of reports from Ukraine of them using Archer. It seems in general, Ukraine are using them singularly as long range snipers. So far they have really liked the ability to set up and bang off a few rounds, then bug out. All in less than just over a minute.

          • Spot on mate good post ,always been a fan of Archer was delighted when announced the British Army were to receive this platforms or be it short compared two the number of AS90s we gifted to the Ukraine. Boxer don’t think we should mess around with it .Let’s just Get in service for what it was meant for .Although that wouldn’t of been my choice but that’s another story 🍺

        • Apparently Archer was preferred by the RA over Boxer 155mm ( I forget it’s name ) not just because it was available now but also because it can depress it’s gun behind the cab and fit under any standard bridge . Boxer SP155 is too high and cannot.

          • The Boxer 155mm is very tall, Archer and a tracked system would be ideal. I do not know why Archer was picked to be honest its a very good system though. I would of only picked Boxer for spare logistic reasons.
            How ever we all know what ever is picked will likely be a bit of half way house as always.

      • We have always had wheeled (towed) and tracked artillery – and for good reason. There has not previously been an affordability concern.

      • Hard question as the light gun is ideal, may be a larger mortar with longer range as i do know of any 105mm gun that is helo moveable apart from what they have.

        • That’s a tricky one as most, if not all, 120mm mortars have less than half the range of a 105mm artillery piece.

          • That is the main problem, hight rate of fire, fast in to and out of action but the rage is crap. What ever 29/7RHA 16 Air Assault get at the moment nothing is better than the light gun.
            A wheeled plat from will either be too heavy or too light and rubbish cross country. I have seen a mock up of an idea for a kind of 105mm sp thing but it looks too flimsy and slow to be any good.

  14. Crews now need the ability to get into action very quickly carry out the mission and move .
    Technology has massively moved on but even 30 years ago a good radar crew could locate morter positions before the first rounds had hit the ground.
    Not up to date and lastest equipment but the days off whole battery of guns located in one field are long gone suspect the crews now have to work completely independently miles apart and all still hit the same target

    • AS-90 introduced in 1992 was required to get into action very quickly, carry out the mission and move. It was able to do burst fire of 3 rds in 10 seconds, something that K9 Thunder cannot do today!

  16. And still, the discussion continues…
    For how many years?

    We just bought some ARCHER, so it’s buy more!
    Or we get BOXER or K9A2 / K9A3 or (fill this space)

    I do despair at the state of procurements for our armed forces

    • The SPG Boxer variant does look interesting but, as we’ve got some Archers in the pipeline maybe it would make sense to get a few more of those for the wheeled component. These could go to 1st Division.

      K9A3 could then be brought in along side to support 3rd Division.

      Would also be nice to see a replacement for the light gun

    • Should say ‘tube’. I think ‘tubed’ is a silly Americanism. The rounds are fired from a barrel (tube), rather than rocket artillery.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here