105mm L118 Light gun

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by marktigger »

useful protecting patrol bases?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Any kind; e.g. when a Stryker bde logs part stops. With the intention to RV with one of the manoeuvre parts, to supply it.

It is not exactly a panzer-lager, at least not at the beginning. Just some huge trucks with, at the most, a .50 cal on top,

So, a couple CGs, behind the seats and preloaded with flechettes... a nice equaliser between many attackers and few defenders (whose primary skills do not lie in gun handling anyway).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: - but in reality they are too heavy,
?...The Carl Gustaf M4 weighs in at less than 7kg....for a piece of equipment that gives the infantry a cheap and effective anti-amor, anti-personel and anti-obstacle capability out to 1000m , i dont think that can be classed as heavy.
relative to alternatives
What alternatives ?

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by marktigger »

Carl Gustav thread started so suggest we continue our discussion there

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

MikeKiloPapa wrote: What alternatives ?
The whole discussion started with mt's question re: should infantry carry its own artillery?

The answer is no. Yesterday the answer was no, as well. Hence mortars being infantry rather than artillery weapons (in most countries... now, Let me talk about the two newly formed Spetznaz arty rgmnts in the R. Southern Military District: they have 260 mm mortars, along with guns... another rebellion to crush must be in the waiting. Grozny to ruble - with no waste of a rouble?)

Back on topic:
CHARLY G aka AT-4
Good range
Confined space models available
Average penetration (400plus mm RHA)
Rather heavy

On the revious thread I was setting this up against the combo of the new Spike Light (perf. stats available there) and the heavier-to-carry but better penetration NLAW.
- Alternative 1

Alternative 2 (not my recommendation, but one of the trends: how to find the middle way between the heavy, disposable recoilless rifles with good penetration and a nice price tag and the more sure-fire ATGWs):
"Lightweight portable ATGM “Pirate” should be firing range of 2.5 km, the weight of anti-tank will be about 10 kg, the entire complex – about 15 kg. The complex is being developed jointly by the Military Technical Academy (WAT – Wojskowej Akademii Technicznej) and Mesko.

The company Mesko in Skarziski-Kamenetz also engaged in the production of MANPADS Grom and license issuance Israeli Spike ATGM company Rafael."
- price tag is starting to suffer
- a parallel version for longer ranges is twice as fast (makes it heavier and more exensive) and is also available

This is all about infantry "proper" ie. folks that carry what they need; Mech / AI infantry folks can have heavy stuff and they also - on average - will need to deal with heavier opposition
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by mr.fred »

As an alternative to being in the AS90 thread: L118 vs 120mm mortar.
Quite why Lord Jim keeps insisting the two are equivalent I don’t know, as the light gun has twice (or more) the range of the mortar.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by Lord Jim »

Wrong the Brandt has a range of around 13km with RAP whereas the LG reaches out to around 19Km. The Brandt can fire cargo rounds whereas the 105 is limited to basic dumb ordinance. The Brandt is lighter and smaller and can be brought into and out of action faster than the LG. The LG has given great service but future artillery must have the ability to fire cargo and precision ammunition, the Brandt can. A JLTV can carry the crew and ammunition for a Brandt 120mm as well as carry the crew whilst towing the Mortar. Like the argument for not replacing the 81mm Mortar with a 120mm weapon, the ammunition for the Brandt is lighter than that of the LG. The LG can still soldier on if a replacement is unaffordable but its utility is going to become less and less. You could allocate expensive NLOD units to augment the LG Regiments to provide some indirect precision fore support but these would probably be used more than the LG. Many countries have learned to avoid fighting in open terrain, they like to fight in urban areas. Western Armies will always have to avoid collateral damage, even in a peep on peer high intensity conflict. Our opponent won't.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by mr.fred »

Cargo rounds have been available for the 105mm (smoke is a cargo round), and the range with base bleed is 21km. In action time for the Light gun is cited as 30 seconds so the mortar would have to be properly quick to get a meaningful advantage on that. Precision guided shells, or at least the guidance kits that replace the fuse, are available in 105mm. https://insidegnss.com/atk-pgk-trials-m ... -standard/

What's an NLOD?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:You could allocate expensive NLOD units to augment the LG Regiments to provide some indirect precision fore support but these would probably be used more than the LG.
NLOD is probably "S" for the last letter?

Isn't the NLOS (Spike) that we have of about the same range than the LG?
- but it is precision, so not a bad pair
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by Lord Jim »

mr.fred wrote:Cargo rounds have been available for the 105mm (smoke is a cargo round), and the range with base bleed is 21km. In action time for the Light gun is cited as 30 seconds so the mortar would have to be properly quick to get a meaningful advantage on that. Precision guided shells, or at least the guidance kits that replace the fuse, are available in 105mm. https://insidegnss.com/atk-pgk-trials-m ... -standard/

What's an NLOD?
Sorry I meant NLOS. Yes if we had sufficient number of these then it would be a good partner to the Light Gun, and again if we invest in modern ammunition for the Light Gun then things would be better, but the ammunition for the L118 is bespoke to the gun. It cannot use on the 105mm ammunition with is why the L119 was developed for the US Army. The problem is its range is greatly inferior to the L118. So we would have to develop a Bespoke range of new ammunition just for the L118, for which we would have to now go to an overseas supplier and so on. IF the Kits shown in the video have been trailed on the L118 ammunition, which I doubt, then again that gives us an option if funding can be found but that is the problem isn't it, funding.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:the ammunition for the L118 is bespoke to the gun. It cannot use on the 105mm ammunition with is why the L119 was developed for the US Army. The problem is its range is greatly inferior to the L118.
A good point, often forgotten/ overlooked

Further, though:
- L119 is considered a specialised asset
- we (wrongly?) consider L118 a general (use) asset
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by Voldemort »

mr.fred wrote:As an alternative to being in the AS90 thread: L118 vs 120mm mortar.
Quite why Lord Jim keeps insisting the two are equivalent I don’t know, as the light gun has twice (or more) the range of the mortar.
They can fill the same niche or they can't, depends on the doctrine. They have different features yes but both great weapons.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:the ammunition for the L118 is bespoke to the gun. It cannot use on the 105mm ammunition with is why the L119 was developed for the US Army. The problem is its range is greatly inferior to the L118.
A good point, often forgotten/ overlooked

Further, though:
- L119 is considered a specialised asset
- we (wrongly?) consider L118 a general (use) asset
Why don't we count how many L118s are needed to support the RM and the Airmobile Bde, flog the rest to Finland - hot on the heels of the Leyland-Dafs - and buy some Nemo turrets for Boxers, as a return 'favour' 8-)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:[qSo we would have to develop a Bespoke range of new ammunition just for the L118, for which we would have to now go to an overseas supplier and so on. IF the Kits shown in the video have been trailed on the L118 ammunition, which I doubt, then again that gives us an option if funding can be found but that is the problem isn't it, funding.
The PEr fuses have been designed, tested and can be manufactured at BAE Glascoed...

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by Lord Jim »

When was that and what level of precision would they give as in the Circular Error Probability? With the Precision fuses available to be added to standard 120mm Bombs the CEP is less than 10m at maximum range. If course if you are using a guided version like Stryx than the CEP is nearly zero as long as the laser stays on target and a GPS package is under development in the US. One additional advantage the 120 bomb brigs is a great amount of explosive contained with in it compared to a 105mm shell and the angle it arrives give a better distribution of damage.

But as I said above, if we are willing to invest in the 105mm Light Gun, maybe get some of those countries that use the L118 version to join in, then it will still have a bright future.

If we don't the batteries of 105mm Light Guns are always going to be more concerned about avoiding the attention of 122mm MLRS like the Soviet era BM-21 that being able to provide effective fire support. The latter or related platforms is in use by too many countries to mention, and its accuracy and range have been constantly improved, often in very cost effective ways, that all but the poorest of countries has been able to improve their systems.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: if we are willing to invest in the 105mm Light Gun, maybe get some of those countries that use the L118 version to join in, then it will still have a bright future.

If we don't the batteries of 105mm Light Guns are always going to be more concerned about avoiding the attention of 122mm MLRS like the Soviet era BM-21 that being able to provide effective fire support. The latter or related platforms
That captures the argument from both sides:
We could invest, but going beyond 20 km in range probably would not be among the outcomes
Whereas
The Soviet-era launcher now has much better rockets to go into it, giving a 20.5 km range
- and pre-frag warheads (a bit like the heavier GMLRS AW)
... which type of c-battery strike would be bad news for towed pieces & their crew. A cassette of 40 is expended in 20 seconds, put 6 vehicles into a battery and 240 falling into a defined grid sq in quick succession (the original MLRS battery was called a 'grid square remover')
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by Lord Jim »

I think this points to the fact that whatever size and make up of BCT we deploy it is going to need support form both a wheeled 155mm SPGs and a mobile GMLRS, rather than the 105mm LG. This again points to the need to re equip one of out current heavy GMLRS with the lighter HIMARS, ideally mounted on a MAN 6x6 to ensure commonality with other vehicles in service. Have a simple liber vehicle with a crane behind the cab and a capacity of four to six, magazines to provide fresh munitions to each two launcher battery and we would be good to go.

But are these two systems agile enough to support the planned Rapid Response BCT? probably not, so something like Spike NLOS for long range precision strikes and Counter batter, backed up by highly mobile and hard to target 120 mm mortars is the way to go with possible man portable 60mm mortars or M4 CGs available down to Company or Platoon level.

The 105mm Light Gun has given great service but it now falls between to level of fire support and although, as many point out it can be mover by helicopter, it lack the range, specialised ammunition and weight of fire to be effective in peer conflicts, and alternatives exist that cover its roles more effectively, without costing the earth or are already in service.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3015
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by Tempest414 »

If the 105mm Light gun can be given PGK's for 10,000 dollars or there about it still has good use with the Air Assault and Commando units and if we want to give them longer strike we could give them Hero 120 with 40km range and 1 hour loiter time

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

8x8, if you think of reloads to hand:
- and no mobility sacrifice; rather the other way round
RE
Lord Jim wrote:mounted on a MAN 6x6 to ensure commonality
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by Lord Jim »

Could you fit one or two "MLRS "Six packs", on an 8x8 as well as the launcher?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2321
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by Caribbean »

Interesting, if rather speculative, article - I hadn't heard of the Lightweight Fires Platform project before. Apologies if it's been posted already
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... e-unmanned
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:Interesting, if rather speculative, article - I hadn't heard of the Lightweight Fires Platform project before. Apologies if it's been posted already
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4 ... e-unmanned
Very interesting indeed - many thanks for posting :thumbup:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by Lord Jim »

Oh God the Army are at it again, staring off into the distance and dreaming of capabilities that are just as far away, unless of course they are after a R/C platform that is.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:Oh God the Army are at it again, staring off into the distance and dreaming of capabilities that are just as far away, unless of course they are after a R/C platform that is.
It's not the army. It's DSTL. It's the exact thing that DSTL is designed to do.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: 105mm L118 Light gun

Post by Lord Jim »

It is an interesting idea, and it is the biggest gun I have seen on a new design UGV rather than making an unmanned version of an existing platform. Maybe having it still crew served but retaining its semi-autonomous capability could be the way forward, traveling with another UGV carrying the Ammunition. Offers interesting direct fire option as well, the Light Gun did have a HESH round after all.

Post Reply