Battle Tactics of HIMARS & MLRS Missile Artillery

[Metal 0-1]

 

[AlKardai]

I'm not sure about the validity of this statement, but apparently the HIMARS is invisible to a Battlefield Radar fitted on certain tanks.

 

[Metal 0-1]

I'm not sure about the validity of this statement, but apparently the HIMARS is invisible to a Battlefield Radar fitted on certain tanks.

Whaaaaaaat.


You can say in a sense that Ground radars can't look over the horizon. So anything that is concealed by horizon is invisible to radars.

Also what kind of tank have a radar?

 

[Bengal71]

Can someone explain to me how HIMARS are different or better than the GMLRS from Turkey, China and Russia?

 

[AlKardai]

Whaaaaaaat.


You can say in a sense that Ground radars can't look over the horizon. So anything that is concealed by horizon is invisible to radars.

Also what kind of tank have a radar?

Certain tanks have battlefield radar. For example, the Merkava, and maybe the T90s?? I know the Merkava has it, but I'm not sure about the T90. I've heard that it does, from some other website a year ago.

 

[PakFactor]

Its tactics are precision-guided hit and run. They would not have been as successful had the Russians provided their front-line troops with proper air cover. So while it's excellent in hitting behind enemy lines, by no means its a wonder weapon; let's not give it God status due to Russian incompetence.

 

[nahtanbob]

Can someone explain to me how HIMARS are different or better than the GMLRS from Turkey, China and Russia?

it is more accurate and more mobile

 

[merzifonlu]

it is more accurate and more mobile

Compared to our domestic artillery systems (not GMLRS), is HIMARS more mobile? Maybe. But this is a carrier platform issue. The solution is easy.

Is HIMARS more accurate? No. We access the military GPS system only under the conditions determined by the USA, but since we do not trust that system anyway, our main guidance technique is not GPS.

We mainly apply the INS+SAL guidance technique. Maybe INS+IIR guidance technique will be added to this in the future. That's why we have them at least as accurate as HİMARS.

 

[MMM-E]

Can someone explain to me how HIMARS are different or better than the GMLRS from Turkey, China and Russia?

Turkish TRLG-230 laser guided MLRS is better than HIMARS M30/31

TRLG-230 laser guided MLRS can hit even moving targets

 

[merzifonlu]

Turkish TRLG-230 laser guided MLRS is better than HIMARS M30/31

TRLG-230 laser guided MLRS can hit even moving targets

It depends on the perspective. As far as I know, HIMARSs given to Ukraine can only hit stationary targets.

Ours can hit moving targets too. On the other hand, for us, we need a marker UAV that is 5 to 25 km close to the target.

 

[MMM-E]

Ours can hit moving targets too. On the other hand, for us, we need a marker UAV that is 5 to 25 km close to the target.

TRLG-230 missile adds terminal guidance to the existing GPS and LASER input during the crucial terminal phase for high precision strike


TB-2 UCAV with Aselsan CATS e/o system can do it from 30 km away
and TRLG-230 MLRS can hit even moving targets from 70 km away

Even Ukranian special forces can use 5-10 km portable laser designitor which is similar to Turkish ENGEREK to keep its Laser designator on the target until a TRLG-230 Laser guided missile impacts and destroys it.

 

[nahtanbob]

Compared to our domestic artillery systems (not GMLRS), is HIMARS more mobile? Maybe. But this is a carrier platform issue. The solution is easy.

Is HIMARS more accurate? No. We access the military GPS system only under the conditions determined by the USA, but since we do not trust that system anyway, our main guidance technique is not GPS.

We mainly apply the INS+SAL guidance technique. Maybe INS+IIR guidance technique will be added to this in the future. That's why we have them at least as accurate as HİMARS.

The HIMARs are devastating in Ukraine war. Unless you can prove your system works in a war it is unproven system.
Lasers don't work in certain climate profiles.

 

[MMM-E]

The HIMARs are devastating in Ukraine war. Unless you can prove your system works in a war it is unproven system.
Lasers don't work in certain climate profiles.

Turkish TRLG-230 is combat proven in Syria and Karabakh ( Azerbaijan )

TB-2 UCAV use MAM-L laser guided munition all weather condition
and TRLG-230 can turn Russian Forces into crap of metal

 

[jhungary]

I'm not sure about the validity of this statement, but apparently the HIMARS is invisible to a Battlefield Radar fitted on certain tanks.

Battlefield Surveillance Radar have at most 5 to 10km range, given HIMARS strike are usually in 50km+ away, it will not be appeared on any BSR

Can someone explain to me how HIMARS are different or better than the GMLRS from Turkey, China and Russia?

The Key is HIMARS "Pod" design. If you have an accompanied reloading vehicle or ready to use Pod, you can replace an Empty pod within a minute, where most other platform take between 3 to 10 minutes.

Also, the single strike rocket (Not Missile like ATACMS) has the longest range of all, the new extended range version for HIMARS have up to 150km range, which give HIMARS deep strike capability on multiple targets.

 

[MMM-E]

Battlefield Surveillance Radar have at most 5 to 10km range, given HIMARS strike are usually in 50km+ away, it will not be appeared on any BSR

Needs Weapon Locating Radar

Weapon Locating Radars in the World

-- 40 km SWATHI ... INDIA
-- 40 km ZOOPARK-I ... RUSSIA
-- 50 km SLC-2 ... CHINA
-- 60 km AN/TPQ-53 ... USA
-- 60 km ARTHUR ... SWEDEN
-- 100 km COBRA ... FRANCE
-- 100 km EL/M 2084 MMR ... ISRAEL
-- 100 km STR ... TURKIYE