Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Maximum Range for Artillery
Roman    9/11/2004 8:07:38 AM
What is the maximum range for artillery, when it is using 'conventional' ammunition (that means NOT using base-bleed or rocket assisted ammunition)?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
Shooter    RE:Maximum Range for Artillery   9/25/2004 6:29:32 PM
There is a handy little program called "BIG GUN" and "biggunmt" for us metric nutballs, that will compute the balistic answers for arty if you input the data. IIRC, I found this program on the "WARSHIPS1" web site. As far as I know the "Unofficial" world record for an arty shot actualy fired is about 95.7 statute miles. Details are not in the public domain. But this is a purely balistic solution without BB or RAP assistance. It was a 105mm gun, too!
 
Quote    Reply

Shooter    RE:Maximum Range for Artillery   9/25/2004 7:28:53 PM
P.S. After now reading all of the posts, I would like to clear up some missunderstandings. When they bought the M-198 and proclaimed it the finnest arty piece in the world they were right at the time. Untill we field newer ICM's that can withstand higher launch stress, it will remain that way. If you take effect into concideration A single 155 or 105 ICM has about twenty-eight and ten times the fire power of a 155mm ERFB HE shell. The ERFB ICM carries about half as many sub-munitions as the M468 or is it M486? (I can never keep all those ICMs straight.) The ERFB is Dr. G. Bull's super streamlined long range shell. Which by the way was not accurate enough to meet US Army's safety standards when firing over own troops heads, as in a close support mission. Since the gun and ammo was heavier than the M-198 it was a loose-loose situation. ( you had to fire many more and heavier rounds to get the same effect on target.) Many ask why not use ICMs Etc, in the longer gun? Well, the good submunitions limmet MV to about 660M/S. What good is the longer, less accurate gun? In addition the ERFB shell hold less than 9 kilos of HE while the New ICM type HE shell hold 12 and has more than twice the fragmentation! ( Sort of like what they did to the LEO 105mm shell only 2.8 times better.) As to those incredably long ranges quoted in prior posts, they all involve some sort of booster rocket, base bleed or aerodynamic wings to glide to that range. No service HE round without aids has reached 43Km as far as I know. (Under any circumstances, from any field gun.) The need for longer ranged artillery is changing. New Briliant fuses that have guidance in addition to multi option fusing will negate the accuracy failures of all of those longer ranged guns and make it not only possable but neccessary to field that type of gun. As electronics get cheeper and aerodynamic fixes get sorted out, eventialy the only impediment to longer ranged arty is time of flight. At those ultra long ranges, TOF is so long that the target will have moved out of the footprint of the shell's seeker. Thus negateing the need for conventional tube arty with ranges much longer than we have seen now. Of course, shooting at third world foes will not require any of this and the same old stuff we use now will be perfectly adiquate. To get an idea of the problems faced by the "NEW SUPER SHELLS" read Janes Deffense Weekly. IIRC it was some time this year where they printed photos of said shells breaking in half just after launch. One of the benifits of arty is that it is/was very ecconomical of ordinance. the new long range guns use much more propellant than their shorter ranged competiters. Use the square of the differance in range to get a very rough idea how much differance. Dispersion means that you have to fire more shell to get the same effect. Even more mass to transport and buy. Conventional munitions cost about $5-6000 per tonne. ICMs about ten times that figure. We have reached the point where only the best heald nations can afford to fight without loosing so many people and stuff that they are destroyed by the war even if they win. And when the poor go up against the rich, the slaughter is now verging on what we expected to see using tactical nuclear weapons in the fifties and sixties. Hope this helps, sincerely, Frankenerd.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:Maximum Range for Artillery   9/26/2004 12:32:50 AM
Not entirely all true. Calling M198 the 'finest gun in the world' circa 1980 was only true if the only thing you valued was light(er) weight. On the down side it has stability problems at certain extremities and a low rate of fire. Compare to FH70 and a few other demerits emerge. Contrary to popular belief ICM is not always more effective than HE (or more lethal). It depends on the tactical circumstances and the type of target. It is possible to fire ICM at the JBMOU max MV of 950 m/s. The Israeli proj used by UK being an example. Firing at the high MVs needed for longer ranges (particularly with smaller shells that lack relative mass and therefore need more MV) is often not the problem. Remember Bull's high altitude experiments involved solid projectiles. Putting a payload, even HE, in a shell and then adding a fuze is a wholly different matter, and far more difficult to solve.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    ...on the M198   9/26/2004 5:08:13 AM
Considering the M198 was designed in the late 1960s and the early prototypes were in testing in the early 1970s... Sure: back then, it probably was the best-yet piece produced. But much has changed in the last 30-odd years. Jane's Armour and Artillery has a very good article, and even gives the ranges of several of the different ammunitions fired by the gun. The only way the M198 can hit 30km is with the M549 series HERA (RAP), or High Explosive Rocket Assist, rounds. Typically, all the other ammunition, depending on type, maxes out between 16 and 18 1/2 km. But even though the newer Bull-type guns have improved-ballistic/aerodynamic shells, when firing standard NATO-type ammo (those that can), these newer 45- and 52- caliber guns (over the M198'S 39 caliber barrel) CAN and DO fire the same NATO rounds to greater distances (although, as you mentioned, Shooter, these shells have limitations when firing at higher charges/barrel pressures.) By Jane's Armour and Artillery, the 39-cal M198 155mm howitzer can throw the NATO M107 HE round out to 18,100m max. Whereas the 52-cal FH2000 155mm weapon can fire the same NATO M107 round out to 24,000m. Many of the rounds throughout the NATO inventory (besides the M107) ARE indeed cleared to be fired by many of the newer 45- and 52- caliber guns as well as the older 39- caliber ordnances. With the continuing development of more cannon-launched PGMs and extended range munitions, barrel length may, in the future, only contribute minimal increases in overall range. Even as many militaries are adopting the 45- and 52- caliber ordnances for their artillery needs, the US has opted still for the 39 caliber gun: United Defense's NLOS-C variant of the FCS, in concept demonstrator form, sports the 39 caliber weapon of the M777 Ultralightweight Field Howitzer (easily identifiable on the vehicle because the barrel still has the towing pintle attached.) The M777 features an un-assisted range of 24,700m. Despite having the same barrel length of the M198, various gun improvements and a stronger breech mechanism and barrel allowing greater charge capacity offers a longer range from the same barrel length. So in its day, certainly the M198 had its merits. But it is now apparent it does not have the most ideal performance, regardless of shell lethality, for the battlefields of the future..
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:...on the M198   9/28/2004 5:27:09 AM
M198 and FH70 were developed in parallel to one another. Basically M198 was a very conventional gun with light weight being its dominant requirement. FH70 introduced several innovations that have since become commonplace. Eg sliding block breech with bagged charges, primer magazine, flick ramming (together giving a 3 rd burst in 15 secs and 6 rds/min), auxiliary engine to give limited local mobiility and power the hydraulics for bringing the gun in/out action quickly (and yes there was manual backup). Its one less successful feature was the electronic nulling sight which was fairly quickly replaced by a conventional Hensoldt optical sight. Of course FH70 was partnered by a new ammo family, but being a 'standard' 39 cal it was fully compatible with the old M107 family. IIRC M198, like M109A1 and later, could use a new top charge for 24km with unassisted HE, Red bag in US normal terms, M203 IIRC but may be wrong and there were/are restrictions on its use. Interestingly some other nations did not adopt this top charge for M109A1, eg Brits introduced their own 24km top charge, L6, using repackaged NQ propellant from 5.5-inch. It could probably have been used by the very few users of M198 and 5.5-in (Aust only?) if they had been so minded. The JBMOU for 52-cal was specifcally designed for backwards compatibility with existing ammo. Basically it's a Brit specification based on their experimental 52-cal tested in the late 1980s. The 45-cal stuff is usually credited to Bull's thinking. What's less clear is issues such as the extent to which highly streamlined shells from a shorter than 52-cal barrel require hotter burning propellant and hence reduce barrel life.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Maximum Range for Artillery   10/14/2004 8:22:03 AM
Damn, you guys are good! Thanks for the illuminating discussions - I think I have learned a lot about artillery thanks to you. :)
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Maximum Range for Artillery   10/14/2004 8:41:31 AM
Sorry for my endless deluge of questions, but the topic is interesting and hence I have another one. Why are tanks and SP guns separate vehicles? Yes, one engages in direct and the other in indirect fires, but would it not be possible to combine them into one? It would afford far more flexibility...
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    Crew and Support    10/14/2004 8:51:35 AM
Yet another two questions...: 1) How many men does an artillery piece require as crew? If the number goes down for some reason (due to casualties for example), what is the minimum number of men an artillery piece can operate with? 2) How many men are required to support a single gun? I do not mean those who crew it directly, but those who maintain it, repair it, supply it (and its unit), provide administration, etc, etc.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    Common Chassis   10/14/2004 11:04:50 AM
Roman, You are correct on the idea of a common chassis, but you are pickign the wrong type. A tank chassis is heavier than needed for SP arty....remember, it just needs to be armored enough to stop small arms and artillery shrapnel. The M110 series of 8-inch howitzers shared the same chassis as the M578 Recovery vehicle, its support vehicle. The M109 shares the same chassis as its M992 ammunition supply vehicle. The MLRS uses the same chassis as the Bradley series. SP is primarily intended for mobility, hence, the lighter armor vehicle chassis work.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:Crew and Support    10/14/2004 11:36:36 AM
The M198 has a crew size of 10, and needs every single one of them, especially for emplacement and displacement, once emplaced the weapon can be operated by 5, however there is no way burst and sustained rate of fire requirements could be accomplished. The guys humping the ammo are going to really suffer. The M777 which will replace the M198 again will have a crew size of 10, however the system can be emplaced and displaced by just 5, once emplaced can be operated by 5 and maintain a reasonable rate of fire, for a short period, say a 25 to 30 rd fire mission. Again its the guys humping the ammo that really start to suffer.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics