Jump to content

105mm guns being replaced by 155mm ...?


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

Along the same lines but BIGGER!

Could you have a short barrel 155mm  howitzer on the same vehicle?  Limit it to what ever size propelling charge the short barrel and vehicle can handle? This would be more of a breach loading rifled mortar based on size.

Several advantages to this:

Bigger bang with the 155 versus 105.

Can use the more advanced 155 type projectiles. 

Something along the lines of this:

A World War II German 150 mm infantry howitzer on a Panzer I. The U.S. M113 is a bigger vehicle. So should be able to handle a similar gun. 

Of course there is close to a Zero % chance of such a thing being adopted. 

Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-216-0406-37,_Russland,_getarnter_Panzer_I_B_mit_I.G._33.jpg (800×538)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

43 minutes ago, Olof Larsson said:

Yes, but with the added advantage that it could use existing 155mm rounds, fuses (and ideally charges) for long range fire, simplifying development, purchase and supply. For a 160mm mortar new ammo would still have to be developed, so we wouldn't really add anything development wise.

If it can use the full charge 155mm then the gun cannot be lightened though. But if it is restricted to reduced charges then there is still a huge advantage to being able to fire 155mm rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, KV7 said:

If it can use the full charge 155mm then the gun cannot be lightened though. But if it is restricted to reduced charges then there is still a huge advantage to being able to fire 155mm rounds.

The old World War II U.S. M3  105mm howitzer infantry howitzer with reduced weight and short barrel (Not the standard M2 howitzer) used the same projectile as the standard M2 105 mm howitzer.

It could use the same powder charges as  the M2 but special charges for the M3 were preferred. Due to the short barrel of the M3 versus the M2 if standard M2 powder charges were used there was tremendous mussel flash due to un-burned powder. 

I could see the same problem with short barreled 155 mm weapons using standard powder charges. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smaller armies too, that means only the most important hardware  remain.  You can live without 105 but not without 155.

If huge armies return you can specialize again.

Good point.  Small armies (like Australia) have to make hard choices.  Resources are most definitely finite.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2022 at 8:39 PM, rohala said:

how does the accuracy of a 105mm gun and a 120mm mortar compare?

There's practical accuracy and first round hit capability. 105mm is superior for several reasons. It's higher velocity, rotating and has a lower trajectory peak point. All of that, especially the last point, makes it less dependant on Meteo data for first round hits, all else being equal.

120mm because of it's trajectory and flight time is more suspectible to the influence of wind, so for first round accuracy Meteo is important if it's windy. That said, even in fairly gusty conditions out to the 6km with no meteo, 120mm just needs a correction and is then fine.

In practical terms I'd say it's fairly equal in terms of at worst needing a correction then being on target.

8 hours ago, CaptLuke said:

One other factor has been that towed 155mm howitzers are getting lighter while helicopters are lifting heavier and heavier loads; this eliminates the air-portable artillery niche that was one of the last strongholds of 105mm artillery. 

Ammunition weight is the biggest weight factor when helo porting artillery. 

8 hours ago, CaptLuke said:

Airborne operations are the last gasp and I agree with KV7 that a 2B16 Nona-K type solution would be superior; I think it's only organizational inertia and sunk costs that are keeping 105mm in that space.

I think so as well. AFAIK none of the nations that went down the 105mm route had experience with 120mm mortars.

 

4 hours ago, shep854 said:

It might be too 'niche', but I can see a role for a 105 howitzer in an infantry support vehicle.  Relatively light and compact yet still able to provide effective direct/medium range fires.

Not going to be equal to something like AMOS and NEMO in terms of weight or effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Quang said:

The South Koreans procured hundreds of EVO-105, basically M101 mounted on 5 ton trucks, with modern FCS, nav and commo systems. Seems like it can go in/ out of action in 1 minute, with ROF of 10 reds/min. Maybe it suits Korea terrain ?

155mm might be out for them because of the limits of the road infrastructure. Even Ceasar will not fit everywhere or, if it gets somewhere, will be difficult to turn around.

Looking at it, I think I've at last found an even bigger abortion then our LAV 120mm system. (or maybe not, if it really is as cheap as it is made out to be, but still a waste)

Edited by Junior FO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

Speaking of D-30, how does the 122mm fit into this? Is it doing a lot a 152mm does but for much less weight? 

Volume increases with the square of the radius, then the length increase because of the shape of the shell. The missing 30mm still make a big difference.

But the 122mm is in an area where there is no substitute. The Russians indirect fire family IMO got it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

120mm was popular howitzer caliber in the "west" also, with Krupp and Schneider 120mm howitzers being sold. Ironically, Russians adopted both as "122mm howitzer model 1909" (Krupp) , and "122mm howitzer model 1910" (Schneider), which introduced 122mm caliber to Russia.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Junior FO said:

Ammunition weight is the biggest weight factor when helo porting artillery.

 

Not going to be equal to something like AMOS and NEMO in terms of weight or effect.

Re ammunition weight, that's a real issue.  My point is that if you want a howitzer and X number of rounds for your artillery raid, or whatever you're doing, then the increased lift and lighter 155mm howitzers lets you do that with 155mm now when it would have had to be 105mm years earlier and something like a Howtar or pack howitzer years before that.  Whether a lift would be better off with more ammunition and less gun is a good question, but helicopter mobility for a 155mm was a big factor in the US going to the M198.

Ref AMOS/NEMO or other modern 120mm vs. 105mm, it's going to depend somewhat on which 105mm and how much chassis you're assuming.  Within the mortar's range, I agree: the 120mm will do much better in terms of weight of fire and system weight.  But AMOS/NEMO range is 10km or so (standard ammunition) compared to 17km+ for an L118 and 24km+ for a Denel G7, so modern 105mm trade range advantage vs. the weight of fire and simplicity/cost/weight advantage of 120mm mortars.

 

3 hours ago, Junior FO said:

155mm might be out for them because of the limits of the road infrastructure. Even Ceasar will not fit everywhere or, if it gets somewhere, will be difficult to turn around.

Looking at it, I think I've at last found an even bigger abortion then our LAV 120mm system. (or maybe not, if it really is as cheap as it is made out to be, but still a waste)

All things being equal, sure, but all things aren't equal.  Again, it's sunk costs: South Korea already had the howitzers and the ammunition stocks.  Taking howitzers you already own, and ammunition you already own, and a 5 ton truck is an 80/20 solution to a problem that, if it weren't for all those sunk costs, I agree would have been better served with a modern 120mm solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

The old World War II U.S. M3  105mm howitzer infantry howitzer with reduced weight and short barrel (Not the standard M2 howitzer) used the same projectile as the standard M2 105 mm howitzer.

It could use the same powder charges as  the M2 but special charges for the M3 were preferred. Due to the short barrel of the M3 versus the M2 if standard M2 powder charges were used there was tremendous mussel flash due to un-burned powder. 

I could see the same problem with short barreled 155 mm weapons using standard powder charges. 

Yes but that is not a very efficient solution for shedding weight, because the chamber and base of the barrel needs thick walls and the recoil and trail need to be strong enough.  And if the weight savings are not so great, you may as well just use an existing lightweight 155mm like M777 or the much cheaper Norinco AH4 155 mm which is only 3000 kg in the 'mountain gun' ASH-4 configuration.

If you want to go this route of very light 155mm I think you would be best doing something like 2B16 Nona-K but with even lower pressure, a more compact trail,  and a lot of effort on weight reduction, or as above something like M-160 with weight reductions from modern engineering.  Then you can have something well below 2000 kg or so and it can start to be a conceivable substitute even for 120mm mortars.

Here is AH-4 btw:

ah4.jpg
 

Edited by KV7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bojan said:

120mm was popular howitzer caliber in the "west" also, with Krupp and Schneider 120mm howitzers being sold. Ironically, Russians adopted both as "122mm howitzer model 1909" (Krupp) , and "122mm howitzer model 1910" (Schneider), which introduced 122mm caliber to Russia.

 

 

Why did they adopt a 120mm gun as the 122mm gun? They already had a 120mm with different ammo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Markus Becker said:

Why did they adopt a 120mm gun as the 122mm gun? They already had a 120mm with different ammo?

122mm A-19 model 1931 was independent development, and I could not find any "origin" gun to it (there were rumors of Bofors involvement, but nothing that could be supported by the facts). Caliber was decided by the requirement to be able to use howitzer ammo with lower charges for a shorter range work.

They did have "107mm field gun model 1910", based on Schneider design, which was also sold internationally by Schneider as 105mm Mle.1913. Despite modernization to model 1910/30 and later brand new model 1940 ( which was inspired by Czech 105mm vz.35 and German 10cm K18 ), 107mm caliber died off in USSR with the beginning of the WW2, as above 122mm A-19 field gun was just better suited for a long range gun needs.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

Why did they adopt a 120mm gun as the 122mm gun? They already had a 120mm with different ammo?

 

1 hour ago, bojan said:

122mm A-19 model 1931 was independent development, and I could not find any "origin" gun to it (there were rumors of Bofors involvement, but nothing that could be supported by the facts). Caliber was decided by the requirement to be able to use howitzer ammo with lower charges for a shorter range work.

They did have "107mm field gun model 1910", based on Schneider design, which was also sold internationally by Schneider as 105mm Mle.1913. Despite modernization to model 1910/30 and later brand new model 1940 ( which was inspired by Czech 105mm vz.35 and German 10cm K18 ), 107mm caliber died off in USSR with the beginning of the WW2, as above 122mm A-19 field gun was just better suited for a long range gun needs.

 

122 mm is 48 lines in pre-Revolution Russian measurements. Perhaps that sounded better or was  easier to make using Tsarist era machinery than 120 mm / 47 lines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long before the weight of 155mms creep up and become so large that something small and light like 105mm gets reintroduced ? See also the 75mm Pack Gun and OQF 25 Pounder Mk1 Short. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, R011 said:

122 mm is 48 lines in pre-Revolution Russian measurements. Perhaps that sounded better or was  easier to make using Tsarist era machinery than 120 mm / 47 lines?

Damn, I have totally misunderstood Marcus question... 😮

As for what was a reasoning for 48 line howitzer (only in 1922 it was formally redesigned as 122mm ) I have never found it, but a lot of commercial machined products from that period had dimensions easily dividable by two multiple times, in which case 48 ( 24/12/6/3 ) is way better than 47.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, KV7 said:

Norinco AH4 155 mm which is only 3000 kg in the 'mountain gun' ASH-4 configuration.

Hadn't heard of this. I have to wonder how it will deal with recoil and higher charges.

13 hours ago, KV7 said:

Then you can have something well below 2000 kg or so and it can start to be a conceivable substitute even for 120mm mortars.

The main volume/weight cost in artillery is always ammunition, not the gun. The ammunition weight for 155 will always be comparatively heavy. Volume wise it's easily 2-3 to 1, mass wise 3-4 to 1, including packaging.

18 hours ago, bojan said:

120mm was popular howitzer caliber in the "west" also, with Krupp and Schneider 120mm howitzers being sold. Ironically, Russians adopted both as "122mm howitzer model 1909" (Krupp) , and "122mm howitzer model 1910" (Schneider), which introduced 122mm caliber to Russia.

Wasn't aware that the Russian 122/152 guns are also mainly a descendant of Schneider/Krupp. They kept their Divisional artillery at 75/122, while the west moved to 105/150(5), maybe a legacy of the less dug in WWI/Civil War experience.

Edited by Junior FO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CaptLuke said:

Ref AMOS/NEMO or other modern 120mm vs. 105mm, it's going to depend somewhat on which 105mm and how much chassis you're assuming.  Within the mortar's range, I agree: the 120mm will do much better in terms of weight of fire and system weight.  But AMOS/NEMO range is 10km or so (standard ammunition) compared to 17km+ for an L118 and 24km+ for a Denel G7, so modern 105mm trade range advantage vs. the weight of fire and simplicity/cost/weight advantage of 120mm mortars.

Wasn't aware of the G7 and the 105 going past 20km. I do wonder what their CEP at those ranges are, never mind the 30km BB range, 155 already suffers in this bracket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Junior FO said:

Hadn't heard of this. I have to wonder how it will deal with recoil and higher charges.

There is a video here of the standard variant firing, see from around 2.45. It has a very long recoil stroke.
 

 

Edited by KV7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Junior FO said:

...They kept their Divisional artillery at 75/122, while the west moved to 105/150(5), maybe a legacy of the less dug in WWI/Civil War experience.

Due the poor motorization. Just before WW2 in 1939. they have introduced "duplex"with intention of replacing/suplementing divisional 76/122 with 107mm M-60 gun 152mm M-10 howitzer but both showed to be too heavy for a poor motorization and 152mm howitzer Bn was removed from a divisions in 1941, while 107mm never saw service as a divisional arty, being relagated to a corps level and independent Bns. Independent Bns were disbanded in 1941, while at corps level it has compared poorly to 122mm A-19, and was abandoned after 1941.

152mm D-1 howitzer (probably best WW2 150/152/155 howitzer) was reintroduced in 1943, intended to be divisional asset, but again motorization pushed it to a corps level. Post war it was however soon moved to divisional arty, with first large reorganization in the '50s when 76mm was dropped.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, bojan said:

152mm D-1 howitzer (probably best WW2 150/152/155 howitzer) was reintroduced in 1943, intended to be divisional asset, but again motorization pushed it to a corps level. 

 

There were advantages and disadvantages to the Soviet D-1  versus say U.S. M1 155 mm howitzer of the same era.

The Soviet D-1 was considerably  lighter.

The U.S. 155 mm howitzer had a better range and a heavier projectile.

For the USSR dealing with the road conditions they faced and the vehicle they had the D-1 was better for THEIR situation.

The M-1 155 mm was better for the U.S. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Junior FO said:

The main volume/weight cost in artillery is always ammunition, not the gun. The ammunition weight for 155 will always be comparatively heavy. Volume wise it's easily 2-3 to 1, mass wise 3-4 to 1, including packaging.

Right, though there is the issue of the maximum load of the platform. As above the case for a super-light 155mm would largely hinge on new ammunition designed for low pressure, so the mass efficiency of the ammunition would be high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bojan said:

Due the poor motorization. Just before WW2 in 1939. they have introduced "duplex"with intention of replacing/suplementing divisional 76/122 with 107mm M-60 gun 152mm M-10 howitzer but both showed to be too heavy for a poor motorization and 152mm howitzer Bn was removed from a divisions in 1941, while 107mm never saw service as a divisional arty, being relagated to a corps level and independent Bns. Independent Bns were disbanded in 1941, while at corps level it has compared poorly to 122mm A-19, and was abandoned after 1941.

152mm D-1 howitzer (probably best WW2 150/152/155 howitzer) was reintroduced in 1943, intended to be divisional asset, but again motorization pushed it to a corps level. Post war it was however soon moved to divisional arty, with first large reorganization in the '50s when 76mm was dropped.

 

Is 105mm the largest artillery that horse teams routinely pulled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...