Before I continue: do you know how NATO 155mm howitzers work? If not, please read my earlier thread about the M777 howitzer.
Once you know how the M777 works (and what primer, fuzes, and charges are), then you will easily understand this thread.
The M109A6 Paladin is the sixth modification of the M109, which was introduced in 1963.
It's a good system, but AS-90, CAESAR, CAESAR 8x8, Archer, PzH 2000, AHS Krab, and Zuzana 2 are all better systems.
The Paladin still uses a 39 caliber barrel and thus has an 18 liter 3/n
charge chamber, which can hold max. five M232A1 charges. This results in a maximum range of 24 km with boat tail projectiles and 30 km with base bleed projectiles - the same range as the FH70 and M777.
But unlike these two towed howitzers the Paladin has INS/GPS and a 4/n
Muzzle Velocity Radar System (MVRS - red circle). This allows the Paladin to stop and start firing within 50-60 seconds, and means that the barrel adjusts after every around for improved accuracy. (The M777A2 has INS/GPS/MVRS too, but Ukraine received the M777A0 which hasn't) 5/n
But what makes the M109A6 an antique when compared to all the other self-propelled NATO howitzers is the loading of projectile, charges and primer... it's all muscle power.
The only help the crew gets is a pneumatic rammer, which was installed with the M109A5 upgrade. 6/n
Let's look at all the manual steps a Paladin crew has to take to load their gun: 1) move the ramming tray into place 2) grab and place the projectile onto the rammer 3) push the projectile in 4) move the rammer to be barrel 5) remove the ramming tray 6) push in the charges 7/n
8) close the breech 8) grab a primer and insert it 9) hook up the lanyard
And then you're ready to fire.
Paladin crews sweat as much as M777 crews.
Luckily for US Army crews the current M109A7 upgrade adds an electric automatic rammer, which also increases the rate of fire. 8/n
The British Army AS-90 was the most modern NATO self propelled howitzer when it was introduced in 1992.
With automatic gun laying, automatic magazine, semi-automatic projectile loading, automatic projectile ramming, automatic primer loading it was a massive capability 9/n
jump. It's only drawback is its 39 caliber barrel, which limits the AS-90's range. The British Army designed an improved turret with a 52 caliber barrel, which the UK government canceled to save money... but that turret is now used on the Polish AHS Krab (pictured). 10/n
As you can see in the video an AS-90 crew is aided massively by the automated system. This results in a higher rate of fire and less crew fatigue, both important factors in an high-intensity war.
And both, Paladin and AS-90 crews, only have to exit their vehicles when they 11/n
have to reload their vehicles' magazines. At all other times they are protected by their vehicles' armor.
This is different with the CAESAR 8x8. Here the crew has to exit the vehicle to fire the gun.
The 8x8x took everything great about the original CAESAR and improved 12/n
on it: armored crew cabin, more ammo on board, automatic projectile and charge loading, Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact (MRSI), etc. etc.
Here French Army and Danish Army troops operate the first CAESAR 8x8 - note the arm grabbing the projectile and placing it into the 13/n
loading tray. All this allows for a high rate of fire. Also CAESAR 8x8 are ready to fire in 30 seconds and will depart before the first fired projectile hits, which helps protect the exposed crew from enemy counter battery fire.
Naturally the 8x8 has MVRS, GPS, INS and a 14/n
52 caliber barrel with automatic gun laying.
52 caliber barrels have an 23 liter charge chamber, which can hold up to six M232A1 charges and thus have a max. range of 30 km with boat tail projectiles and 40 km with base bleed projectiles
Denmark donated of all (!!) of its 15/n
artillery - a stunning move and Ukrainians will enjoy these 19 CAESAR 8x8 a lot.
Now to the Archer, which is best artillery system in Ukraine (sorry PzH 2000). It is - like the Zuzana 2 - a fully automated system. Once loaded the crew operates the entire system from the 16/n
armored cabin. The Archer has a 52 caliber barrel, fires 9 rounds a minute, can set Excalibur and Bonus rounds automatically. And if the Archer should encounter russian troops, then the crew grabs the joystick or gamepad and lights the russians up with the remote controlled 17/n
heavy machine gun or the 155mm cannon in direct fire mode. Archer - the howitzer the russians will come to fear.
Last but not least: here is a video of the Archer in action. I cut the music at the end so you can hear the sound of the autoloader. 18/n
Ukraine is finally getting all the artillery its needs (including M109L and PzH 2000 from Italy).
Still more is needed: especially dual-purpose improved conventional munition (DPICM) projectiles to annihilate russian infantry attacks (a perfectly legal ammunition) 19/n
And above all Ukraine needs Western main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.
Denmark showed the way: donate all of a weapons system to help Ukraine NOW! NOW!
Piecemeal donations prolong the war and cost lives. We have to send Ukraine all it needs and do so NOW!
20/end
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
These are the π¬π§ 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
π¬π§ 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:
β’ of course NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war IN (!) Ukraine,
β’ 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
Gripen fans continue to spam my mention with claims how fantastic Sweden's Bas 90 and Gripen combination is... and that it would work for Canada's North too...
Ok, let's quickly compare Canada's three northern territories (Yukon, Northwest, Nunavut) and Sweden... ... 1/6
Land area:
πΈπͺ 450,295 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
π¨π¦ terr.: 3,593,589 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
The land area of just the three territories (without Canada's 10 provinces) is already 8 times bigger than all of Sweden...
(In total Canada's land area is 9,984,670 km2
2/6
(3,855,100 sq mi) or 22 times Sweden).
Population:
πΈπͺ 10.61 million
π¨π¦ terr.: 0.13 million
Sweden's population is 81.6 times bigger than that of the three territories... and if you look at population density:
πΈπͺ 23,6/km2
π¨π¦ terr.: 0,013/km2
3/6