Katyusha/FROG in Western Armies?

[Britboy]

I originally mooted this in the Russian Arty thread, but as its really a different point, thought I would float it as an idea on its own. What's the consensus on whether some of these rocket arty systems would be useful in a Western force?

We seem to have pretty much settled on the 227mm MLRS for guided missile artillery. Now I've heard this is a massively capable weapon ('grid square removal system'), but as all designs are trade-offs, surely other systems which strike the balance elsewhere could also be of use.

I.e. those modern day Katyusha's look as if they have little in the way of fire control, and probably don't have the MLRS's range. But they have LOTS of rockets, and are probably cheaper, allowing lots of vehicles to be bought. Sometimes you might need more than 12 rounds, sometimes pinpoint accuracy at up to 70 miles may not be that important. Sometimes you may just want to stonk an enemy force or position with a lot of cheap and destructive rockets. Why not supplement MLRS with a number of these for those instances?

Also we don't seem to have much bigger than MLRS. Would a FROG-type weapon, only more accurate, come in useful? This is probably not so important as we have airpower which is able to take on this role, and we don't want to be employing tactical nuclear weapons, which are probably suited to these rockets anyway. But in an environment where air superiority cannot be guaranteed, I can see a value to a FROG-type weapon with more accuracy, for fighting the deep battle with. Useful in conventional warfare for destroying command & sigs centres, supply dumps, key facilities and so on - probably hardly any use in the current conflicts however.

At the moment, going longer-ranged than MLRS (FROG) seems to not be that required. But going shorter-ranged and with more rounds than MLRS (Katyusha) - could this be of use in conventional warfare, and also in the cases of massed attacks against outposts seen in Afghanistan today?

[DesktopArmor]

I.e. those modern day Katyusha's look as if they have little in the way of fire control, and probably don't have the MLRS's range. But they have LOTS of rockets, and are probably cheaper, allowing lots of vehicles to be bought. Sometimes you might need more than 12 rounds, sometimes pinpoint accuracy at up to 70 miles may not be that important. Sometimes you may just want to stonk an enemy force or position with a lot of cheap and destructive rockets. Why not supplement MLRS with a number of these for those instances?

Well, the West Germans had the LARS system, not all too different from the BM-21, but a little more accurate. However, they replaced it with the MARS system (MLRS). Also, the submunitions of the MLRS rounds do a lot to make up for the comparatively limited number of rockets being fired. You don't need to shoot too many if each one has ~50 warheads.

Also we don't seem to have much bigger than MLRS. Would a FROG-type weapon, only more accurate, come in useful? This is probably not so important as we have airpower which is able to take on this role, and we don't want to be employing tactical nuclear weapons, which are probably suited to these rockets anyway. But in an environment where air superiority cannot be guaranteed, I can see a value to a FROG-type weapon with more accuracy, for fighting the deep battle with. Useful in conventional warfare for destroying command & sigs centres, supply dumps, key facilities and so on - probably hardly any use in the current conflicts however.

At the moment, going longer-ranged than MLRS (FROG) seems to not be that required. But going shorter-ranged and with more rounds than MLRS (Katyusha) - could this be of use in conventional warfare, and also in the cases of massed attacks against outposts seen in Afghanistan today?[/quote]

There is a FROG, equivalent, only better with longer range, more power, and greater accuracy. The ATACMS rounds (128 km versus 70 km for FROG-7) exist, and use the exact same MLRS launchers as the regular rounds. Not the same size tubes, but loaded the exact same way. However, afaik, only the US and S. Korea use ATACMS. IIRC, for the first ATACMS firing in Gulf War 1, they had to get the air force to clear a flight corridor for the missile, something they apparently had never done in combat before.

[Lokos]

BritBoy and Desktop,

GazB has left a fairly informative post in the Russian Artillery thread that covers both posts in this one.

Lokos

[delio]

the submunitions of the MLRS rounds do a lot to make up for the comparatively limited number of rockets being fired. You don't need to shoot too many if each one has ~50 warheads.


I also like the way its loaded, ..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HPApt0hbaU

[Britboy]

Cheers DA and Lokos, I posted this before seeing GazB's post.


Cheers
BB

[GazB]

I also like the way its loaded, ..

It is certainly a good idea to load it in packs like that, but you need to keep in mind this was intended for WWIII.

The Czechs I think made a version of the truck mounted Grad except it has a reduced length launcher at the rear and between the cabin and the end of the launcher they have a pallet of a full reload of rockets. Compared to the original the 40 rockets can be fired and in 2-3 minutes it can be reloaded, while the normal grad took anything from 10-15 minutes to bring up the loading truck and manhandle the 40 122mm rockets.
This was claimed in the west to be a much better system than the original... so why didn't the Soviets adopt it?

Well reloading in a WWIII war didn't need to be fast. Operationally you would fire all your rockets and then you'd drive away to a new launch site and then reload there. Even just spending 2-3 minutes after your very visible launch to reload means you might find the enemy has pinpointed your location and artillery rounds are coming in. You are sitting in an unarmoured truck and would be very vulnerable to counterbattery fire.

Regarding the FROGs, and for that matter the Scuds, they were intended to be used against targets like airfields and HQs and communications centres that would have been all over the place in Europe in WWIII. Nuclear or chem or bio warheads would have been used as standard so the lack of accuracy was unimportant. Both the Scud and the FROG have been replaced in Russian service by what are known in the west as ISKANDER-E and TOCHKA-U, which are scud and Frog replacements respectively. In both cases a satellite photo can be scanned into the computer in the missiles with the coordinates of the target. The missiles are launched and fly towards their targets and use optical guidance to find and hit the targets. Accuracy is given as better than 10m.
The export models have ranges limited by international agreement... ISKANDER is 280km and Tochka-U is about 120km.

An interesting but not so well known fact is that unknown to the US, during the cuban missile crisis in addition to lots of Intermediate range ballistic missiles the Soviets delivered to Cuba they also sent a large number (ie 70 plus) FROGs all armed with tactical nuclear warheads to defend cuba by being fired at any ship that approached cuba with the intention of invasion. It is a scary thought that the option of the US invading Cuba would have put the decision of starting a nuclear war was in the hands of the local FROG unit commanders...

Of course modern use of such weapons would simply not be acceptable hense the Tochka and Iskander which both have conventional warheads with much better accuracy.

[JoaMei]

This was the german LARS, not longer in service:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/r110sf2.jpg

http://www.rakartbtl12.de/waffensysteme/lars/bild_10.jpg

http://www.rakartbtl12.de/waffensysteme/lars/bild_09.jpg

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9346affc12&c=1

[Bongopete]

Wasnt the old 'Honest John' or the 'Lance' a sort of comparable missile to the Frog?

[delio]

The Czechs I think made a version of the truck mounted Grad except it has a reduced length launcher at the rear and between the cabin and the end of the launcher they have a pallet of a full reload of rockets. Compared to the original the 40 rockets can be fired and in 2-3 minutes it can be reloaded, while the normal grad took anything from 10-15 minutes to bring up the loading truck and manhandle the 40 122mm rockets.
This was claimed in the west to be a much better system than the original... so why didn't the Soviets adopt it?

Well reloading in a WWIII war didn't need to be fast. Operationally you would fire all your rockets and then you'd drive away to a new launch site and then reload there. Even just spending 2-3 minutes after your very visible launch to reload means you might find the enemy has pinpointed your location and artillery rounds are coming in. You are sitting in an unarmoured truck and would be very vulnerable to counterbattery fire.No matter where, you do it you still have to reload. The speed at which you do it is still very important. Its a nice force multiplier - it means you can get back in the game a lot quicker.

It also means you the option of spending less time at any sedentary/fixed spot.

[NavyTimes]

LARS - my god.

[GazB]

No matter where, you do it you still have to reload. The speed at which you do it is still very important. Its a nice force multiplier - it means you can get back in the game a lot quicker.


In practical terms it is not that important. Against a top knotch enemy ie WWIII then the instant you fire your last round you move or you die. Against an enemy that has no artillery spotting radar or radar early warning network operational then you can sit all day firing from the same place. The problem is that you don't fire a rocket barrage from an MLRS unit at a single sniper. You fire it at a concentrated enemy position. Such things don't appear every 3 minutes on the battlefield within 40km of whereever you have your MLRS units set up. For most targets in the latter scenario a full battery fire would not be needed so reloading would not be urgent.

[quote]Wasnt the old 'Honest John' or the 'Lance' a sort of comparable missile to the Frog?[./quote]

Both were not only comparable but better. The reality is that the job the Honest John and Lance and Lance II would probably have been done by aircraft for the last 25 years... especially with the introduction of GPS guided bombs to make it cheap and all weather.

[perdurabo]

Czechoslovakian (remember guys that in that time it was one country and now it is produced in Slovakia not Czechia!) Grad is RM-70 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RM-70

[valtrex]

RM-70 in the Greek Army (116 systems)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyuoUlcA44k

[perdurabo]

Slovakia(with help of Dhiel) has good modernisation project RM-70Modular you can put 1 MLRS container on it or 1 with old 122mm tubes(rearanged to fit in new container)

We (Poland) also have modernisation project of our BM21 (change of chasis, battlefield menagment system, new fire controll, new rockets, new mechanism only tubes are old)

[People's General]

Type Weight Caliber Number of Tubes Range Weight of Rocket
BM-21 11.5 122 40 20.4 66
BM-27 20 220 16 35 280
BM-30 43.7 300 12 70-90 800
RM-70 23.3 122 40X2 20.4 66
WP-8 0.7 140 8 9.8 39.6
RPU-14 1.2 140 16 9.8 39.6
BM-14 5.3 140 17 9.8 39.6
BMD-20 8.7 200 4 20 91.4
BM-24 8.7 240 12 10.2 112
BM-25 18.2 250 6 30 455
M-51 8.6 130 32 8.2 24.2
LARS 110 18X2 14
M-270 24.7 32-45 306

both sides' Long Range Rocket Artillery(>20km) will conduct Counter Battery mission on battlefield
However M-270 also have to take on the task of destory soviets' Front AA Defence. This requires M-270 has to be greater accuracy in its design.

[People's General]

http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collections/colltopic.cfm?lng=en&id=18780&navinfo=14968
the quantity of tactical missle launcher of both sides