With the M777 and CAESAR two of the four artillery systems promised to Ukraine are now confirmed to be at the front in Donbas:
๐บ๐ธ๐ฆ๐บ๐จ๐ฆ M777
๐ฎ๐น FH70
๐ซ๐ท CAESAR
๐ณ๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ช PzH 2000
How do they work? What are their differences? What makes the later two the best?
A thread ๐งต:
1/n
All 155 mm NATO howitzers operate the same way and if you have not yet read my earlier thread about operating an American M777 howitzer, please do so now to familiarize yourself with fuzes, projectiles, primers, charges, etc. and how they are used.
M777 and FH70 are towed 155 mm howitzers with 39 caliber barrels.
This means their barrels are 39 ร 155 mm = 6045 mm
This results in an 18 liter charge chamber, which can fit up to 5x M232A1 charges. Therefore the range for both guns is the same.
3/n
The FH70 includes a small engine, which allows the gun crew to drive it into position. The engine also powers the hydraulics to emplace the gun.
This makes the FH70 easier and faster to set up than a M777, which is emplaced by pure muscle power and needs a truck to move.
4/n
The FH70 and M777 use the same projectiles, fuzes, and charges. Only the primers are of different size. The sequence of preparing the projectiles and then loading the gun is also the same.
5/n
Just like the M777, the FH70 has to be sighted optically and adjusted manually. After each shot the gunner has to check and correct the gun.
The M777 A1/A2 are fully digitized and sighted with two LCD displays, but all M777 are adjusted manually too.
6/n
One advantage of the FH70 is the semi-automatic projectile loading. The projectile still needs to be rammed into the barrel, but this still results in a higher rate of fire than the M777.
Other advantages are the automatic loading of the primer when the breech closes and 7/n
the ability to fire the gun from the gunners seat, while the M777 requires the use of a lanyard.
The M777 and FH70 are similar systems and Ukrainian troops will use them in similar ways, which cannot be said about the next two systems. 8/n
CAESAR and PzH 2000 are self-propelled 155 mm howitzers with 52 caliber barrels: 52 ร 155 mm = 8060 mm
The longer barrel allows for a larger charge chamber of 23 liter. This larger chamber can fit up to 6x M232A1 charges, which results in a better range for both systems.
9/n
This one charge more improves the range of both systems for base bleed projectiles from 29 km to 40 km and for standard projectiles from 24 km to 30 km.
But the extended range is not the main advantage of these two systems.
10/n
The CAESAR is fully digitized, with automatic gun laying, semi-automatic projectile loading, automatic ramming, and automatic primer loading. This allows the CAESAR to stop, emplace, fire 6x rounds, and depart in less than 2.5 minutes as this old French Army video shows.
11/n
This speed allows the CAESAR to operate within range of russian artillery. M777 and FH70 crews will likely avoid operating within 20 km of the frontline as there they would be in range of russian counter battery fire.
But counter battery fire is no problem for the CAESAR 12/n
or PzH 2000. Both will be long gone before russian return fire hits:
1) russian radar picks up CAESAR fire 2) russian radar informs a battery to fire back 3) russian battery sights and loads its guns 4) russian battery fires 5) russian projectiles need 70-80 seconds to hit
13/n
but already by the time a russian battery gets the order to fire back the CAESAR and PzH 2000 are gone. This is the main advantage of modern self-propelled artillery: the ability to shoot and scoot.
14/n
The only drawback of the CAESAR is that it carries only 18x rounds. So after 3x stops to fire 6x rounds the CAESAR has to return to the ammunition supply point to reload.
Still the CAESAR is the best artillery systems in Ukraine now... until the PzH 2000 arrives.
15/n
The PzH 2000 is fully digitized, with automatic gun laying, automatic projectile loading, automatic ramming, automatic fuze setting, and automatic primer loading.
The PzH 2000 is also Multiple Round Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) capable - it's the best system in the world.
16/n
The PzH 2000's automatic magazine holds 60 projectiles, sorted to allow the use of different projectiles and fuzes in a fire mission.
Btw: the guy in the back of this photo is the driver. 17/n
The magazine is loaded by hand. It takes about 12 minutes to load all 60 projectiles and 288 charges.
18/n
To speed up reloading the projectiles and fuzes are prepared by a dedicated support crew at the ammunition supply point (the same is done for the CAESAR).
19/n
When the PzH 2000 commander receives a fire mission he orders the driver to park at a suitable location. Once stopped turret and gun barrel automatically deflect and elevate for the fire mission.
If time or proximity fuzes need to be set, the gun does this automatically too. 20/n
Due to all the automation 3x rounds can be fired in 10 seconds. Or 20x rounds in 2 minutes.
After each round the fire computer automatically re-adjusts the barrel and improves accuracy by using data gathered by the radar on the barrel, which measures the projectile's speed.
21/n
The PzH 2000 also has MRSI capability, which means it can calculate and automatically adjust the barrel to deliver up to 5x projectiles at the same moment onto the same target.
No russian system has this capability.
22/n
Sadly Ukraine only will get 12x CAESAR and 12x PzH 2000. Ukraine needs more such systems.
Ukraine is now in talks to acquire Slovak Zuzana 2 howitzers, which are similar in capability to the PzH 2000... but it might take months for them to be built and arrive.
23/n
If we want Ukraine to win this war, we must send more Western artillery: especially self-propelled artillery with 52 caliber barrels and automatic gun laying (CAESAR, PzH 2000, Zuzana 2, AHS Krab (photo), AHS Kryl, K9 Thunder, Archer).
24/n
But we also must send M270 MLRS or M142 HIMARS (photo), because without them russian supply points and long range air defense positions remain out of reach for Ukrainian artillery.
The brave Ukrainians need our help. Let us be brave like them and send them all they need.
25/n.
What military/ weapons/ tactical/ strategic/ logistics/ materiel/ historic topic should I thread about next?
Please leave suggestions and wishes under this tweet.
โข โข โข
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
To give you an idea, why European militaries prefer US-made weapons to European-made weapons:
Europe militaries urgently need a ground launched cruise missile capability... the US already had such a (nuclear) capability in 1983, then dismantled all of its BGM-109G Gryphon
1/10
ground launched cruise missiles after signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
russia of course broke this treaty after putin came to power and after 15 years of ignoring russia lying about it Trump finally ordered to withdraw from the treaty in August 2019.
2/n
Just 16 days after withdrawing from the treaty the US Army began to test launch Tomahawk cruise missiles form land (pic) and in June 2023 (less than 4 years later) the US Army formed the first battery equipped with the Typhon missile system.
And as Raytheon has a production 3/n
These are the ๐ฌ๐ง UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.
First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps 1/9
to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.
But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9
down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and 3/9
๐ฌ๐ง decline: Only one SSN is operational, three are no longer fit for service and got no crews. One carrier has no air wing and has been sent to rust away. The other carrier only has an air wing when the RAF cedes a third of its fighters. Only 1 destroyer is operational. The
1/5
frigates are falling apart. New Type 31 frigates won't get Mark 41 VLS or bow Sonar. The RAF took 48 of its Eurofighters apart, because it got no money for spares. The army has just 14 155mm howitzers. The Ajax vehicle is injuring the troops it carries. The Warrior IFVs are
2/5
outdated and falling apart. They amphibious ships are not deployable / crewed for lack of funds. The UK has not anti-ballistic missile system (e.g.Patriot). There is only money for 12 F-35A, the smallest F-35A order on the planet. The tank force is at its smallest since 1938.
3/5
International Law is worthless paper if you cannot and will not back it up with military power.
Dictators do not care for international law. But they fear the US Air Force. The moment the US signaled it would no longer back "international law" putin annexed Crimea and Assad
1/10
gassed his people. International Law is what defence laggards hide behind to not have to spend for their own security (hoping the US will save them from their irresponsibility) .
European politicians like to grandstand about "international law" but NO European nation has the
2/n
the means (nor the will) to the enforce it. European politicians grandstanding about international law always do so in the belief that the US will enforce their balderdash.
So European politicians lecturing the US about "international law" now are utter morons, because they
3/n
All this "NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war in Ukraine" is ridiculous, because:
โข of course NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war IN (!) Ukraine,
โข because that is not how a NATO-russia war will be fought. NATO, even just European NATO,
1/4
fields: 244 F-35, 403 Eurofighter, 183 Rafale, 177 modern F-16, 3 Gripen E, and 896 older fighter types.
A total of 1,906+ fighters (without the US Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force; and with more new fighters entering European service every week).
russia, when counting
2/4
generously can't even put half that fighter strength into the field, and the 1,010 modern European NATO fighters would devastate russia's fighter force.
With NATO air supremacy comes absolute dominance of the battlefield. Every russian moving near the front would get bombed
3/4
Gripen fans keep hyping the Gripen with fake claims & as long as they do, I will counter them:
Scandinavian Air Force officer about the Gripen E: It can either be fully fueled or fully armed or flown from short runways. Never can 2 of these things be done at the same time.
1/25
The Gripen fans keep claiming that the Gripen has a better range than the F-35 and can fly from short runways... then admit that its max. range can only be achieved with external fuel tanks, which weigh so much that the Gripen E can no longer fly from short runways.
2/n
External fuel tanks also mean: the Gripen becomes slower, the radar cross section increases (making detection more likely), the fuel consumption increases,... and even with all 3 external fuel tanks the Gripen E carries 1,340 kg less fuel than the F-35A carries internally.
3/n