Stryker Brigade News: Stryker Howitzer Prototype

Stryker Brigade News ^ | 5th April 2004

[Pamlico]

I dunno. It seems to me that we have created a big, fat RPG magnet. Maybe they would do OK if they are protected by a fleet of M1A1's.

[archy]

I dunno. It seems to me that we have created a big, fat RPG magnet. Maybe they would do OK if they are protected by a fleet of M1A1's.

You must not have heard. There aren't going to be any M1A1s.

The Army is on schedule to meet its goal of standing up the objective force by Chief of Staff General Eric K. Shinseki's target timeframe of 2008 to 2012. According to Army officials, the Army should attain the technological innovations needed to create the objective force as projected. Key among these are the technologies required to produce the future combat system, which will be a replacement for the 70-ton M1 Abrams tank that will have the same lethality and survivability but will weigh only 20 tons. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology, Dr. Michael Andrews, predicts, "By the end of [20]05, early [20]06, we will have a future combat systems demonstration. We're not having to create new technologies out of thin air."

You see any M1A1/A2 tanks in here:

[GeronL]

Looks good. But I will not be happy until we come up with the titanium armored Mech with the 105mm laser-targeted gatlin gun.

[archy]

That's a howizter? I thought a howitzer was a short-barreled thingie, sort of a cross between a mortar and a long gun. Seems it would be less top-heavy and more mobile with a shorter barrel.

Not so much since the South African/SRC development of the 45-caliber tube 155mm G5 series weapons and base-burn ammunition with a range of circa 50 KM. As mortars now reach the ranges previously served by shorter-tubed howitzers and guns, the value of tube artillery at longer ranges takes on more and more importance- particularly if the other folks cannon cockers have it.

[FlyVet]

Not so much since the South African/SRC development of the 45-caliber tube 155mm G5 series weapons and base-burn ammunition with a range of circa 50 KM.

What is meant by "45-caliber", when the bore is 155mm? Is it the tube's wall thickness or what? Also, what is "base-burn"? Is there a website that explains all this fascinating stuff? I have a minor understanding of ballistics, since I reload my own ammo.

[68skylark]

You seem to know what you're talking about.

I got my start in a unit that had at least one M-114 (not an M-114A1). Tells you something about how old I am!

I recently re-joined a FA unit, with M102's this time. We may be converted to MP before long, but in the meantime it's nice to brush up some of my FA skills.

I sure hope (and suspect) that this new Stryker cannon will have a much longer range that a M-119. We'll see.

[archy]

You seem to know what you're talking about. I got my start in a unit that had at least one M-114 (not an M-114A1). Tells you something about how old I am!

I recently re-joined a FA unit, with M102's this time. We may be converted to MP before long, but in the meantime it's nice to brush up some of my FA skills.

I sure hope (and suspect) that this new Stryker cannon will have a much longer range that a M-119. We'll see.

I'd be worried about such a Stryker battery [4 guns? 6?] falling prey not to a hostile tank platoon, which it might at least outrun, but to enemy tracked MICVs or light tank destroyers, along the lines of the BMD-3 or BTR-80 or-90/Kliver turret with quad-tube Kornet-E 9K129 AT-13 missile launcher and 30mm autocannon. Just as bad: the BMD-3 or BMP-3 with missile launcher, autocannon and a 100mm smoothbore main gun, also capable of serving as a launcher for the AT-10 *Stabber* AT missile, range to 4,000m-plus. A security detail of Strykers mounting only .50 MGs is not going to cut it. And the former Soviet vehicles and present Russian upgraded versions are mostly amphibious, as well.

[RedlegCPT]

Throw that straw man away, we have passed that with the UA concept already. 2 Batteris 8 Guns. It has been very interesting at teh NTC this last month.

[archy]

Throw that straw man away, we have passed that with the UA concept already. 2 Batteris 8 Guns. It has been very interesting at teh NTC this last month.

Usable, and easily broken into three six-gun batteries if required, as in two-up/one back fire support bases. Now all they'll need is a rotary-wing lifter that can get them across blue lines where bridges or fords are lacking. I recall a ballpark figure of 19,555 pounds for a CH47, but upgraded models might beat that a bit, and an airmobile model Stryker might be worth consideration.

[archy]

Not so much since the South African/SRC development of the 45-caliber tube 155mm G5 series weapons and base-burn ammunition with a range of circa 50 KM. What is meant by "45-caliber", when the bore is 155mm? Is it the tube's wall thickness or what? Also, what is "base-burn"? Is there a website that explains all this fascinating stuff? I have a minor understanding of ballistics, since I reload my own ammo.

It's the length of the gun barrel in relation to its caliber, therefore 105mmx45, or in the case of the South African G5, a 155x45 caliber-length tube.

The terminology is derived from naval guns, where barrel length was not only a matter of ballistic interest, but also of concern to turret and mount engineers so that a full 360-degree sweep of the turret might be managed without conflicting with other gun mounts or superstructure, or in the case of main batteries, so that a sweeo of 180 degrees or more forward or aft could be maintained for broadside firing.

[SAMWolf]

Gee, all that work to go to tracked SP artillery and we go back to wheels. :-(

[archy]

You seem to know what you're talking about.

I got my start in a unit that had at least one M-114 (not an M-114A1). Tells you something about how old I am! I have been at this racket for some time, and have been accused of having been a dining room orderly at the Last Supper. I was also once informed by a a fella who I found was a pretty good and perceptive NCO that *Sir, you're the oldest second looey I ever seen...you must have really ####ed up.*

Did your M114 have the GMC 283-V8 engine? The first two 2404-9 suggestions for vehicle improvements I submitted as a young tanker were for the M114; I found out the Marines had replaced the 125HP GMC engine in their M50 Ontos recoilless rifle tracks with the Chrysler V-8 318 and asked *why not*? And a Diesel would have even better, providing fuel compatability with our M60A1 tanks and M113A1 tracked ambulances.

The 20mm gun for the M114A1 mount was something less than a screaming success and was usually more commonly seen with a M2HB TT in place instead, no real great improvement over the M2 mount of the M114, and a headache in that forward-area tank crews had their .50 ammo issued in links for the M85, different from the M9 links for the M2, which prevented resupply or cross-leveling ammo between FEBA tanks and scouts. Since the M85 had a lo-hi selectable rate of fire up to 1000 RPM per gun, I suggested a twin-gun M85 mount for tank battalion M114A1s instead, later fine-tuned to a 3-gun mounting that with all 3 guns in hi-rate mode offered more firepower than the M55 quad .50 of the Korean and Vietnam wars. We built 4 units for our battalion's M114A1s, drove to Graf for a firing test that was filmed and studied to death by ordnance and Seventh Army, and which was still under consideration when our recon platoons got Diesel engined M113A1s instead. Oh well.

I recently re-joined a FA unit, with M102's this time. We may be converted to MP before long, but in the meantime it's nice to brush up some of my FA skills. I sure hope (and suspect) that this new Stryker cannon will have a much longer range that a M-119. We'll see.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

My wife took one look at the pic and said "Is that real? It looks like an abortion."

When I got done laughing I had to admit that turret and gun tube look extremely unwieldy on that chassis. I wouldn't get near any river banks with it.

[muleskinner]

I think GDLS came up with this because they can't get the original Stryker 105 to work properly. Why a 105? Don't think that ammo is being made anymore. Is that a green canvass covering the "secret" turret? Or the usual GD quality of workmanship on display for all to see?

[Cannoneer No. 4]

AMOS mortar turret with double barrel 120 mm mortars.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Sisu AMOS

[archy]

Hmmmm. Weight? And will either fit in a C130 aircraft?

[Cannoneer No. 4]

[muleskinner]

Oh wait, GD went to a 105 'cuz the chassis and suspension may be unable to handle the larger recoil forces of a 120. Firing a 155 raised to, oh 45 deg or so, would bottom out the suspension on the 2 rearward sets and get the 2 front sets of tires airborn. Major E ticket ride for the crew, prolly dangerous.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

The turret alone weighs 4400 kg

Do you think the Stryker Howitzer will fit in a C-130?