Posted on 03/30/2016 12:01:19 PM PDT by C19fan
On March 19, U.S. Marine Corps staff sergeant Louis Cardin, a field artilleryman assigned to the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, died during an attack on Fire Base Bell outside of Makhmur, Iraq. Coincidentally, the U.S. Army is hard at work developing a farther-firing howitzer that could help keep artillery troops out of range of enemy forces.
The Army is cooking up a suite of improvements could double the range of the existing M-777 howitzer. Right now the 155-millimeter gun, in service with the Army and Marines, can lob shells at targets up to 18 miles away.
(Excerpt) Read more at warisboring.com ...
They have probably been waiting for his patents to expire so their cronies in the defense industry don’t have to pay royalties to Bull’s heirs.
John should be Gerald.
Can't speak to the "actual" reason, but that one was certainly true.
We switched tubes to the 8" in '78.
Gerald Bull’s ‘supergun’ designs are more complex, a lot less mobile (as in, they’re fixed position guns that can neither traverse nor elevate) and require a lot more by way of logistics support. The more conventional guns he designed for South Africa only achieved their ranges with Swedish base-bleed technology on the projectiles, which can be fired from existing US guns. The actual GC-45 and resulting G5 howitzers aren’t actually that special. The larger G6/Al-Fao guns turned out to be impractical in reality and never entered service.
Yup, to quote Wiki:
The dispersion of the EFRB shell is more than three times that of the FH-70 field howitzer at its maximum range of only 5 km less, and is twice as great as FH-70s at 20 km (66,000 ft; 12 mi). Its maximum range with the M107 projectile is the same as any 39 calibre 155-mm gun and its dispersion about the same. (The “dispersion” figure means that 50% of shells will fall up to the stated distance either side of the mean point of impact, but 100% will fall within 4 times the probable error either side.) Dispersion of this magnitude significantly reduces the tactical value of the equipment.
I just remember having some discussions over beer about that SA gun with some other artillery types in the 80’s/early 90’s. Not sure what else they do to the shell, but it might limit the warhead size, etc., as well.
We need to be accurate to hit hardened small targets. If our troops are in danger and need fire support, accuracy is important and I am all for it. As to collateral damage, though, I don’t really care. Although the masters in charge of things see it differently
Well, it’s not just collateral damage. It means less effective metal on the target. And it also presents a significantly greater danger when firing danger close in support of troops.
Okay, when I was in the Army, I never had to fight anything more dangerous than a typewriter (Chairborne Ranger all the way, buddy, hooah!), so perhaps my lack of understanding is... understandable... but isn’t this what airpower is for, particularly when you find yourself in combat with a turd-world country?
Whatever happened to copperhead guided rounds? Cost?
All true. The great the range, the greater the dispersion. All sorts of factors:
- Tube sag/vibration/whip
- Meteorological effects acting on the projectile over a longer distance
- Variations in muzzle velocity variance, projectile uniformity, slowing of projectile rotation over a longer flight path
In short, any errors at all are magnified the further you throw an unguided projectile. The old 175mm gun had a CEP of almost 1,000 meters at its max range, so every shot fired was “to whom it may concern”. Good enough to hit North Vietnam, but never good enough for Danger Close.
Of course, we can always try guided rounds but a quarter million each, we don’t get too many rounds.
Really hard to wean the senior army and Marine Corps artillery leadership from excessively long tubes/heavier gun systems. They seem oblivious to the consequences for finding enough geography to emplacement them or the crew loads imposed (12 minute “hip shoots”) or the problems involved in lifting them and their prime movers over long distances.
Need more General Officers with technical degrees, I guess.
The premise of the article is bogus. The enemy who launched rockets at the fire base were well within the range of those howitzers, keeping the enemy outside a 43 mile diameter circle is impossible.
The biggest issue of the extended range howitzers is the sustained rate of fire. Unfortunately no one in the current force can remember when volume of indirect fire was essential. We have other weapons systems that can reach out and touch the long range targets, the purpose of the guns are to mass fires at the decisive place and decisive time. Ask the Wehrmacht what they thought of American artillery.
Another installment in the game of horseshoes and hand grenades..
All of this will mean nothing when the railgun technology is perfected. Distances will be immaterial and accuracy will be measured in inches and centimeters.
I want one.
Are they on Gun Broker yet?
That is NOT a “howitzer”! It’s a gun: howitzers are cannon systems capable of both low angle and high angle fire interchangeably and one would assume, easily.
That pig would have to loaded at a low quadrant, then laboriously cranked up to 1100 mils or so - then laboriously cranked back down to loading elevation again, etc., etc.
Sheesh!
Honestly? A rail gun? What was your degree in, anyway?
If - and only if - we come up with a miniature nuclear power plant to power that thing and can live with a CEP the size of Montana, it’s a dandy idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.