Interesting photo from yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/ph...04d8f9eb1a7f203

US Soldier firing a Russian made D-30 howitzer in Afghanistan. What is the US policy on using captured heavy arms?

Vladimir

Apparently its allowed...

Easier to beg forgiveness...?

I don't think its captured, maybe borrowed from the Northern Alliance?

D30 are standard equipment for the Afghan National Army. UK has been training Afghans to use them properly in Helmand (having sent the mentoring team to the Czech Republic for some prior training themselves!), they're also converting the sights to NATO mils. I assume the US Army is doing the same, and some other NATO armies in Afg.

To Czech Republic? Strange, I thought we had get rid of all D-30's by giving them away (among others to Georgia). Maybe not, otherwise apparently the trainers would have to look at pictures only

OTOH Slovakians do still use a 6-gun battery for ceremonial purposes AFAIR.

Well, it's a good gun with its all-round traverse. A feature that M777 lacks.

FDF trained team of Brits to use D-30 recently, so that they could instruct ANA etc.

Just an idle thought, would it be possible to convert 9M117 series missiles to be fired from 122mm (or 120mm) barrel, so that the D-30 might get turned into cheapo AT-Gun (you would need little more than a laser, right?)? Or 120mm gun-mortars 2A60 and 2A80?

Lacks the power and range of the M777, but it is certainly good enough for the Afghan Army.

The M777 has a very limited traverse - it needs two to three minutes to turn it for a response beyond that traverse. That's a serious drawback imho.

Well it has the same traverse as the M198 howitzer. Certainly it's lighter weight makes it easier to turn than the M198 too. In my opinion your better with self-propelled artillery if you going to be dealing with threats where traverse time is going to be a major issue.

I believe there was some sort of artillery drill with the M198 where you were supposed to turn the gun to respond to an out of traverse artillery mission in about 75 seconds or so. Can anybody confirm?

My mistake, Slovak not Czech, at the beginning of 2007. The Mongolian Army has also been helping with D30 training in Afghanistan.

75 seconds seems generous for a carriage traverse, given that M198 has a sole plate.

On the other hand, how long does it take to displace the D-30 compared to M777? If the Other Guy has something to throw back, this would be very interesting information.

Isn't that usually 90-120 seconds for all medium and heavy towed guns?

90 seconds from fully employed position to it being hitched to the truck, as long as a full crew is present.

Which must be quite a trick to watch, even a "normal" gun displacement is quite a dance

Matt

What takes the time is repacking the ammo into a state that is Ok for moving it. Of course this can be managed progressively for a planned move. Another factor is whether gun towing vehicles are get close to the guns or off the gun position, again gun position management practices come into play here as to the extent of preparation allowed when 'prepare to move' is ordered and how soon before 'cease firing' is actually ordered.

Actually getting the gun out of action (removing sights, bringing the barrel to the travelling position, drop the wheels (both D30 and M198) close the trails) doesn't take anytime at all providing the drills are well designed to give concurrent activity. What may take time with a heavier gun is hooking up because it needs precise driving, with a lighter gun the detachment can move it those few inches.

D30 is a simple, robust gun in a useful calibre, but it's on the heavy side (3+ tonnes) for what it does, which is a characteristic of Soviet design guns. M198 was designed around being light weight (if you call 7+ tonnes light) and compares badly with other western 155 mm towed guns of its era which concentrated on being good guns without the distraction of light weight.

No it's not. If it were, it would be addressed in the system design. Remember, division have multiple battalions so that proper employment will create adequate coverage.

Gun belongs to ANA and the US is mentoring one arty Bty at easter-Afg. Most possibly guy in photo is part of the mentor personnel of this bty.

Even assuming it is doable you would certainly need far more than "little more than a laser". You need the sight with the relative systems to be able to guide the missile. This is a somewhat expensive piece of equipment.
The gun has already "cheapo AT-Gun" capabilities in the form of HEAT rounds capable of penetration in excess of 400mm of RHA. Enough to deal with older tanks. Against newer ones better investing in an ATGM system which does not suffer from the constraints of being fired from a tank gun.

Problem is that today deployments are highly 'improper' and fire units are expected to shoot 'touts azimuth'.

That problem was solved as far back as Dien Bien Phu -- mutual support between firebases.

Which means - - - touts azimuth.

Of course I for one wouldn't suggest Dien Bien Phu as a good example of fire support, but I guess it depends on your standards. But I'd agree that Gen Giap knew his business at Dien Bien Phu and mutual support among his batteries doesn't seem to have concerned him.

And as far as troops on the ground were concerned, even in a small space like SVN, they could well be under the coverage of only 1 FSB, at least as far as close fire was concerned, 175mm Danger Close (-) is not generally recommended if there is nothing except your greens between you and the fire.

Yeah and look how well that one turned out when the VM were able to neautralize firebases individually...