Wheeled artillery, not a new thing...

[Snowman]

The war raging out in Ukraine has highlighted the need for and versatility of wheeled artillery. On the modern battlefield as you are aware there are drones & counter battery artillery radar. The idea of fixed artillery positions is out of date and only possible if the opponent does not have the ability to detect and destroy your fixed positions. The fact that the "west" have only cottoned on this fact and that tracked artillery is slow, along with it's massive support chain, is a deficit. The Russian's who in my opinion base their entire "meat grinder" military strategy on artillery supremacy have also received a rude shock when their "inferior" opponent has the equipment and the range to destroy their static artillery positions.
All the major powers are now embracing wheeled as the the go to solution for artillery, embracing the " shoot 'n scoot" doctrine for effective support and survivability on the modern battle field. The Russian's are effectively using their MBT's as mobile artillery support units due to their vulnerability to drones, smart munitions and ATGM's in the open battlefield.

As I was alluding to in the title, these vehicles have been around for 4 decades, but their actual validity and versatility was never appreciated, as the super powers never appreciated that their doctrines were out of date and their preferred vehicle mode was too slow, vulnerable and a logistic nightmare.

Going back nearly 4 decades, the then SADF were engaged in a border war in the then north South West Africa (Namibalia) and southern Angola against a force backed and supplied by Cuba and the then Soviet Union. Their WW2 artillery was out gunned and out ranged by the Soviet hardware supported by counter battery radar. After developing a towed artillery unit, the G5 based on an IDF design, it was decided that a more mobile artillery unit was required. This lead to the development of the G6.

In 1987, four prototypes were driven about 2500km from South Africa to the South West African (Namibian) and Angolan border where they were trailed and then deployed on the border in a baptism of fire, providing suppression fire on an Angola airbase, destroying a number of Migs attempting to take off. Only one vehicle broke down and had it's engine replaced within a matter of hours.

This level of mobility, range in both travel and fire support as well as minimal logistic support chain requirements are only new to those who do not employ these methods of warfare. As such the counter battery support too will need to be highly mobile as well as the air defense units protecting these high value elements.

Well, that sums up my thoughts and highlights the importance of wheeled artillery in it's various forms ranging from the Archer to the truck based Cesar to name a few currently in action.

It's not a new thing, it's just that the powers that be did not realise or appreciate how vulnerable their "static" artillery was in a modern battlefield arena.

This is where you join in and offer your thoughts and comments, be it for or against.

 

[Deleted member 6598]

I think you’re oversimplifying things a bit. The principal reasons for putting artillery into fully armoured, full-tracked vehicles from the 1950s on were sound ones: far greater mobility than towed artillery, especially off-road, and protection against both enemy fire and NBC attacks. At least into the 1980s, wheeled vehicles were not an option for this because the cross-country performance of one capable of carrying a 155+ mm weapon in the conditions of Western/Central Europe were simply not up to the task. I suspect South Africa could do it with the G6 by the 80s because of advances in technology and operating in savannah-type terrain in a dry part of the world. I see that Windhoek gets around 70–80 mm of rain a month in the wet season, for example, and under 400 mm a year. That’s under half the average annual rainfall where I live in the Netherlands (as measured by a rain gauge in the garden and tracked in a spreadsheet for the past decade), which likely makes a great difference to the type of vehicles needed for off-road driving. It gets worse in rolling country, where much of that rainwater is going to end up in the lower-lying parts and create even thicker mud than it would if the ground were more or less flat. That is to say, it’s hard to do shoot-and-scoot with vehicles that are stuck up to their bellies in the mud The greater mobility in that type of terrain is why most SP artillery was tracked at least into the 1990s.

I’m also curious to know whether South Africa’s principal reason for using wheels for the G6 (and other AFVs) rather than tracks, was cost rather than greater mobility. Tracked vehicles are, after all, a lot more expensive to build as well as to run. Cost is one of the reasons why European militaries are turning to wheeled SP guns over tracked ones nowadays. Sure, they have acceptable off-road mobility under European conditions now too, but still not up to the level of their tracked counterparts, but given the tight purses of the last thirty years where defence is concerned, cost has to be a factor as well.

 

[Snowman]

I think you’re oversimplifying things a bit. The principal reasons for putting artillery into fully armoured, full-tracked vehicles from the 1950s on were sound ones: far greater mobility than towed artillery, especially off-road, and protection against both enemy fire and NBC attacks. At least into the 1980s, wheeled vehicles were not an option for this because the cross-country performance of one capable of carrying a 155+ mm weapon in the conditions of Western/Central Europe were simply not up to the task. I suspect South Africa could do it with the G6 by the 80s because of advances in technology and operating in savannah-type terrain in a dry part of the world. I see that Windhoek gets around 70–80 mm of rain a month in the wet season, for example, and under 400 mm a year. That’s under half the average annual rainfall where I live in the Netherlands (as measured by a rain gauge in the garden and tracked in a spreadsheet for the past decade), which likely makes a great difference to the type of vehicles needed for off-road driving. It gets worse in rolling country, where much of that rainwater is going to end up in the lower-lying parts and create even thicker mud than it would if the ground were more or less flat. That is to say, it’s hard to do shoot-and-scoot with vehicles that are stuck up to their bellies in the mud The greater mobility in that type of terrain is why most SP artillery was tracked at least into the 1990s.

I’m also curious to know whether South Africa’s principal reason for using wheels for the G6 (and other AFVs) rather than tracks, was cost rather than greater mobility. Tracked vehicles are, after all, a lot more expensive to build as well as to run. Cost is one of the reasons why European militaries are turning to wheeled SP guns over tracked ones nowadays. Sure, they have acceptable off-road mobility under European conditions now too, but still not up to the level of their tracked counterparts, but given the tight purses of the last thirty years where defence is concerned, cost has to be a factor as well.

Very valid points and I do agree, it's a very simplistic analysis that I've based my commentary on. The type of warfare the SADF were involved in was very mobile, the Angolan, Cuban, Soviet adversary utilised fixed positions with dug in MBT's and fortifications. When mobile, the SADF utilised their mobility to out flank the MBT's with their Eland 90's later replaced by the Ratel 90's in the interim, prior to the Rooikat, the Eland 's official replacement, which did not make it the border. The only tracked vehicle in the SADF arsenal was the Olifant Mk1A which was utilised for head on armour to armour assaults. This too was hampered by the dense bush and trees. I have photo of one fitted with tree breaking bush bar, similar to the wedge design of the Rookat, G6 and Ratel, for cutting a path though the bush.

So mobility was key to the form warfare they were waging against a better supplied foe.

 

[JR]

Gavin, what a well written and interesting article. I can see Jakko's view point from the mud perspective, but regardless of that the idea for being able to move the artillery quickly instead of having a fixed position is better.

 

[Deleted member 6598]

The type of warfare the SADF were involved in was very mobile, the Angolan, Cuban, Soviet adversary utilised fixed positions with dug in MBT's and fortifications.

More or less (but not exactly) the opposite of the kind of war NATO expected to fight, then. NATO equipment of was geared to fighting a defensive war against Warsaw Pact forces pushing as fast as they could to the North Sea and the Rhine. They didn’t intend to do this from fixed positions, of course, but as the defender they didn’t need to be quite as mobile as the attacker. Still, if you look at American and European SP artillery designed from the 1980s on, it’s clearly also intended to be able to move quickly into a firing position and after firing. This is why the M270 MLRS uses a tracked chassis derived from the Bradley, for example, or why the PzH 2000 is so big and heavy, yet pretty nimble across country, despite being tracked too.

the wedge design of the Rookat, G6 and Ratel, for cutting a path though the bush.

I didn’t know that’s the reason for the sharply shaped front, but it makes sense now you point it out

 

[Snowman]

You are quite correct, the war they were designed for is not the war currently being fought in Ukraine. The modern battlefield there is far removed from anything that had preceded it. Another anomaly in Ukraine beyond the drone is the total lack of air superiority, be it by fixed or rotary wing. MANPAD's and the modern ATGM have almost cancelled out the CAS element provided by choppers and CAS fixed wing aircraft over the battlefield. A very curious dilemma. The long range surface to air stuff appear to working as predicted, though the Russian's have used some of theirs as makeshift long range surface to surface missiles. Anyway I'm diverting from wheeled artillery which is on the rise in the evolving battle of Russia Vs Ukraine.

I have attached the image if the Olifant fitted with tree breaking bush bar.