US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by tphuang, Mar 24, 2006.

  1. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    23,294
    Likes Received:
    27,547
    TerraN_EmpirE likes this.
  2. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    23,294
    Likes Received:
    27,547
  3. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    23,294
    Likes Received:
    27,547
  4. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    23,294
    Likes Received:
    27,547
  5. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,357
    Likes Received:
    10,689
    Because 1963. That was the year the M109 was first in service. Back then 23 caliber 155mm was state of the art.
    This was Upgunned in the M109A1 in about 1975 moving up to the 39 caliber gun. This with farther improvements became the basis of the M109A2 which was standardized in 1978 and would continue in production until 1985.
    M109A3 were M109A1 refit to the A2 standard.
    A4 were introduced in the late adding NBC protection systems.
    A5 in 1985 replaced the 39 caliber canon with an improved 39 caliber that extended the range.
    A6 in 1992 improves armor and ammo safety and Fire control.

    Okay so we see the overall gist.
    So why is the Barrel short?
    Well it was long barreled once for US service already when it went from the stubby 23 caliber to a 39 caliber. When the 23caliber was in service the US had other larger artillery types in service. See M110 203mm SPH those stayed until the late 1980s early 1990s.
    Next as the US moved to that new 39 caliber and standardized on it a new technology emerged. That technology was the Gun Canada 45. Gerald Bull used the gun of the M109A1 and improved on it lengthening it to a 45 caliber and adding Bleed base technology this however happened in 1977 after the US had chosen to standardize on the 39 caliber. It’s hard to say a year into production “oh sorry we made a mistake we want this even longer barrel now” to Congress.
    Bull started selling to export including to South Africa who was fighting an Insurgency war but was also deep in Apartheid. Well even as Bull is selling these to South Africa in 1977 an international Embargo is in place. He needed a production line and partnered with a company in Austria. That firm would in 79 buy the rights to the design rebranding it as the GHN 45 they in turn sold licenses to China and Israel. They would also sell GHN45 to both Iran and Iraq in the Iran Iraq War circumventing arms Embargoes.
    This is leads to Chinese, Israeli and South African iterations of the 155mm 45 caliber in the 1980s 1990s.
    In 1980 the Carter Administration goes after Bull to make an example of him, he spends 6 months in Jail and after release leaves the US and swears off sales to the US.
    NATO members pretty much remain standardized on the 39 caliber gun. New 155mm guns in NATO states SPH and towed remains at this length until the mid 1990s when The Swiss take their M109 and drop a 47 caliber gun into it creating the M109 KEWEST.
    The British and Germans start flirting with pushing a even longer 52 caliber gun.
    Then the US, South Korea, Japan, Poland and Germany launch programs to replace the M109.
    The XM2001 Crusader, K9 Thunder, Type 99, Krab, PzH 2000 all start between 95-2000. (These are after the M109A6 has entered service.)
    The US DOD canceled Crusader in 2002 (Leaving only the M109A6) But the others go full bore... (pun intended).
    A few countries even modify M109 models with 52 caliber guns as either stop gap or long term solutions.

    The US however has other ideas, now intent to buck the 52 trend. Their next new SPH program is the FCS NLoS-C. A self propelled 155mm 38 caliber vehicle.
    The Aim of FCS however is not peer on peer combat but asymmetric warfare as such the shorter ranged gun is more than enough if all the bad guys have is AKs and mortars.
    FCS of course was terminated and NLoS-C with it. This left the M109A6 rather long in the tooth so launched the M109A7 program.

    Basically M109 remains in US service for the same reason C130 does. Every successor gets the budget axe.

    Now that laid out it should be said that the US is not the only nation post millennium that tried to push a new 155mm Self Propelled armored Howitzer of below the 45 caliber gun lengths. Singapore’s Primus is also a 39cal and was introduced in 2004. The Chinese also have a export 155mm 39 caliber 8x8.
    Short barrels are lighter and more rigid than long barrels. Easier to transport. 39 caliber SPH can weigh between 20-40 tons where longer barrels tend to 35-60+ tons. This it to deal with increased recoil, a denser barrel to prevent droop and counter balance to prevent oscillation of the gun well moving. This however creates issues in strategic mobility, they are to heavy for C130 and even A400M class.
    52 caliber SPH makers to try and keep weight down and make easier to transport have been forced to abandon tracked armored vehicles in favor of Trucks. In Essence making a hybrid of towed self propelled howitzers that they can try to keep under 30 tons.

    And this is where we stand now. The M109A7 is already pushing above 37 tons. So pushing up to a 58 caliber barrel is weight wise not a killer it’s never riding in a C130. But it’s still a full 10 tons less than K9 Thunder.
    Long barrels are being pushed for the M777 as well.
    The fact is that the US Artillery has been out gunned since the retirement of the bigger guns. With no known game plan for a Paladin replacement in the near, mid even potentially long term 58 caliber 155mm M109A7 is better than 39 caliber.
     
    #11355 TerraN_EmpirE, Jul 16, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2019
    Jura likes this.
  6. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    23,294
    Likes Received:
    27,547
    and the rate of fire Today at 8:06 AM
    ?
    as far as I know, the Mstas can shoot twice as fast as the Paladins; I guess you don't want me to go on and describe "possible implications for the battlefield"
     
  7. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    23,294
    Likes Received:
    27,547
  8. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,357
    Likes Received:
    10,689
    Manually loading vs an mechanical loader.
    The rate of fire slows down considerably once the Auto loader magazine is spent though. I mean XM2001 and PzH2000 could/can fire 10 rounds a minute.

    The “Implications of the Battlefield” is a Dubious argument though as rarely does a Howitzer need to go firing that fast. There is almost no time to adjust or aim on other targets. Also Like the Autoloader of a Tank sure you can crank out 14 rounds a minute, but if your position is that saturated you are in a loosing fight And have maybe half a minute more rounds are left before you are using foul language. Or trying to pull back so you can hop out and start reloading the loader ready magazine.
    In the case of saturation fire like that easy fix call have more than one gun fire on the target.
     
  9. Jura
    Offline

    Jura General

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    23,294
    Likes Received:
    27,547
    46 minutes ago I meant mainly battery on battery (six x six, you may now tell me there're more Paladins that six in a US battery, I admit I don't know that)

    oh and as for an autoloader:
    Extended-range cannon to get autoloader within five years
    March 26 https://www.defensenews.com/digital...e-cannon-to-get-autoloader-within-five-years/
     
    #11359 Jura, Jul 16, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2019
  10. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,357
    Likes Received:
    10,689
    If you are under that you are probably a little to excited to start counting how many shots you are taking.
    Again rate of fire in this is a bit of a fictional reality. Yes you can hold that more consistently with a mechanical loader but what are the chances of ever needing to shoot that fast?
    One two rounds okay with modern ammo and fire control you can even drop them both on target in the space of a second or two.
     
Loading...

Share This Page