User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:14:28 PM EDT
[#1]
NO
WTF I can't reply with just "NO" what is this BS I need a freaking Wall of Text to post? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:15:49 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NO WTF I can't reply with just "NO" what is this BS I need a freaking Wall of Text to post? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:24:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: I was recently reading about them in a book about Vietnam, and the author was commenting on how they were apparently much less accurate than the 155mm howitzers, but pretty devastating when they could get them on target. Pretty sure the army doesn't use artillery bigger than 155mm anymore. During the cold war years, mainly the 60s and 70s, the army had artillery up to 203mm. That's pretty damn big for an artillery piece on land. That's the same size gun that most heavy cruisers used during WWII. Some might still exist in storage somewhere and might be part of some other's country army. You can't blame them for phasing them out though. Something that big is hard to maintain and difficult to crew due to the size of the shells and equipment. Not to mention that is is cumbersome in a SPG role and probably difficult to tow. It seems that smaller caliber guns, rockets, and air power can do the just as well or better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:26:00 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty sure the army doesn't use artillery bigger than 155mm anymore. During the cold war years, mainly the 60s and 70s, the army had artillery up to 203mm. That's pretty damn big for an artillery piece on land. That's the same size gun that most heavy cruisers used during WWII. Some might still exist in storage somewhere and might be part of some other's country army. You can't blame them for phasing them out though. Something that big is hard to maintain and difficult to crew due to the size of the shells and equipment. Not to mention that is is cumbersome in a SPG role and probably difficult to tow. It seems that smaller caliber guns, rockets, and air power can do the just as well or better. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:27:22 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NO WTF I can't reply with just "NO" what is this BS I need a freaking Wall of Text to post? Nope 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:27:43 PM EDT
[#6]
The 8 inch and 175s went away a long time ago. Juice wasn't worth the squeeze.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:28:58 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty sure the army doesn't use artillery bigger than 155mm anymore. During the cold war years, mainly the 60s and 70s, the army had artillery up to 203mm. That's pretty damn big for an artillery piece on land. That's the same size gun that most heavy cruisers used during WWII. Some might still exist in storage somewhere and might be part of some other's country army. You can't blame them for phasing them out though. Something that big is hard to maintain and difficult to crew due to the size of the shells and equipment. Not to mention that is is cumbersome in a SPG role and probably difficult to tow. It seems that smaller caliber guns, rockets, and air power can do the just as well or better. Also in recent decades - as the current war is extensively demonstrating - militaries have figured out that it is almost always better to trade boom for precision. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:32:36 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You sure wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of this gun. 203mm is a monster. Wear hearing protection! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:37:18 PM EDT
[#9]
MLRS in addition to advancements in the requirements for fire and our doctrine made them obsolete
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:38:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also in recent decades - as the current war is extensively demonstrating - militaries have figured out that it is almost always better to trade boom for precision. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Pretty sure the army doesn't use artillery bigger than 155mm anymore. During the cold war years, mainly the 60s and 70s, the army had artillery up to 203mm. That's pretty damn big for an artillery piece on land. That's the same size gun that most heavy cruisers used during WWII. Some might still exist in storage somewhere and might be part of some other's country army. You can't blame them for phasing them out though. Something that big is hard to maintain and difficult to crew due to the size of the shells and equipment. Not to mention that is is cumbersome in a SPG role and probably difficult to tow. It seems that smaller caliber guns, rockets, and air power can do the just as well or better. Also in recent decades - as the current war is extensively demonstrating - militaries have figured out that it is almost always better to trade boom for precision. In addition to mobility. Counter battery is a real thing |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:40:53 PM EDT
[#11]
The video posted today of the Russians getting trashed, what MM are Ukes using?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:43:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also in recent decades - as the current war is extensively demonstrating - militaries have figured out that it is almost always better to trade boom for precision. Bullshit. More PGMs being used in this conflict than any major conflict in history. The 203mm howitzer was replaced with MLRS, and GMLRS can do with a single round what a battery of 203s would do. The 175mm sucked, they had a habit of blowing up that required maintenance crews to inspect and replace barrels regularly in the field. They were also famously inaccurate. The only thing they have going for them was range. Now, a 52 caliber 155 can hit the same range, and MLRS can go 2x as far and up to 4x as far with developmental rockets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:45:06 PM EDT
[#13]
Nope. They were terrible. My Field Artillery FIL said they were so inaccurate the Vietnamese probably sold them to us.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:46:06 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The video posted today of the Russians getting trashed, what MM are Ukes using? 155mm for US and a Korean. Russian is 203mm to 152mm |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:46:06 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NO WTF I can't reply with just "NO" what is this BS I need a freaking Wall of Text to post? Lorem Ipsum text generator. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:49:11 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You sure wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of this gun. 203mm is a monster. Wear hearing protection! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/203mm_Self-Propelled_Howitzer_M110A2.JPG Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You sure wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of this gun. 203mm is a monster. Wear hearing protection! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/203mm_Self-Propelled_Howitzer_M110A2.JPG Atomic Annie: Hold my beer  Attached Filehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_atomic_cannon |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:53:40 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bullshit. More PGMs being used in this conflict than any major conflict in history. The 203mm howitzer was replaced with MLRS, and GMLRS can do with a single round what a battery of 203s would do. The 175mm sucked, they had a habit of blowing up that required maintenance crews to inspect and replace barrels regularly in the field. They were also famously inaccurate. The only thing they have going for them was range. Now, a 52 caliber 155 can hit the same range, and MLRS can go 2x as far and up to 4x as far with developmental rockets. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Also in recent decades - as the current war is extensively demonstrating - militaries have figured out that it is almost always better to trade boom for precision. Bullshit. More PGMs being used in this conflict than any major conflict in history. The 203mm howitzer was replaced with MLRS, and GMLRS can do with a single round what a battery of 203s would do. The 175mm sucked, they had a habit of blowing up that required maintenance crews to inspect and replace barrels regularly in the field. They were also famously inaccurate. The only thing they have going for them was range. Now, a 52 caliber 155 can hit the same range, and MLRS can go 2x as far and up to 4x as far with developmental rockets. You just called bullshit on his post and then agreed with him that it's almost universally better to trade in extra HE for more precise targeting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:56:23 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also in recent decades - as the current war is extensively demonstrating - militaries have figured out that it is almost always better to trade boom for precision. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Pretty sure the army doesn't use artillery bigger than 155mm anymore. During the cold war years, mainly the 60s and 70s, the army had artillery up to 203mm. That's pretty damn big for an artillery piece on land. That's the same size gun that most heavy cruisers used during WWII. Some might still exist in storage somewhere and might be part of some other's country army. You can't blame them for phasing them out though. Something that big is hard to maintain and difficult to crew due to the size of the shells and equipment. Not to mention that is is cumbersome in a SPG role and probably difficult to tow. It seems that smaller caliber guns, rockets, and air power can do the just as well or better. Also in recent decades - as the current war is extensively demonstrating - militaries have figured out that it is almost always better to trade boom for precision. What the 175mm brought to the fight in its day was range. It was the only artillery system we had in Vietnam that could out range every Soviet piece used by the NVA. The Israelis used them extensively against SAM sites in the Sinai in 1973. MLRS ultimately filled that role, but back in the day the range of the 175 was invaluable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:58:32 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You just called bullshit on his post and then agreed with him that it's almost universally better to trade in extra HE for more precise targeting. After reading all those posts 3 times I think everybody's agreeing it's better to put a little one right on the nose than toss a big one in the general direction |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:59:00 PM EDT
[#20]
You young whippersnappers have no idea...
Spearhead Special Weapons baby!  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:00:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Does the Army still employ 175mm self-propelled guns? No, they were all fired... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:01:51 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bullshit. More PGMs being used in this conflict than any major conflict in history. The 203mm howitzer was replaced with MLRS, and GMLRS can do with a single round what a battery of 203s would do. The 175mm sucked, they had a habit of blowing up that required maintenance crews to inspect and replace barrels regularly in the field. They were also famously inaccurate. The only thing they have going for them was range. Now, a 52 caliber 155 can hit the same range, and MLRS can go 2x as far and up to 4x as far with developmental rockets. ................. What kind of SJW level of reading comprehension did it take to get "no one is using PGM" out of my post? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:02:08 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty sure the army doesn't use artillery bigger than 155mm anymore. During the cold war years, mainly the 60s and 70s, the army had artillery up to 203mm. That's pretty damn big for an artillery piece on land. That's the same size gun that most heavy cruisers used during WWII. Some might still exist in storage somewhere and might be part of some other's country army. You can't blame them for phasing them out though. Something that big is hard to maintain and difficult to crew due to the size of the shells and equipment. Not to mention that is is cumbersome in a SPG role and probably difficult to tow. It seems that smaller caliber guns, rockets, and air power can do the just as well or better. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I was recently reading about them in a book about Vietnam, and the author was commenting on how they were apparently much less accurate than the 155mm howitzers, but pretty devastating when they could get them on target. Pretty sure the army doesn't use artillery bigger than 155mm anymore. During the cold war years, mainly the 60s and 70s, the army had artillery up to 203mm. That's pretty damn big for an artillery piece on land. That's the same size gun that most heavy cruisers used during WWII. Some might still exist in storage somewhere and might be part of some other's country army. You can't blame them for phasing them out though. Something that big is hard to maintain and difficult to crew due to the size of the shells and equipment. Not to mention that is is cumbersome in a SPG role and probably difficult to tow. It seems that smaller caliber guns, rockets, and air power can do the just as well or better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:03:25 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bullshit. More PGMs being used in this conflict than any major conflict in history. The 203mm howitzer was replaced with MLRS, and GMLRS can do with a single round what a battery of 203s would do. The 175mm sucked, they had a habit of blowing up that required maintenance crews to inspect and replace barrels regularly in the field. They were also famously inaccurate. The only thing they have going for them was range. Now, a 52 caliber 155 can hit the same range, and MLRS can go 2x as far and up to 4x as far with developmental rockets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:04:24 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You young whippersnappers have no idea... Spearhead Special Weapons baby! https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOOpaIAWoAUN5AL.jpg:large Thats probably one of the coolest pictures I’ve ever seen here |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:06:15 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In the book I'm reading, the author makes the point many times that its deviations laterally were almost nonexistent, but its deviations longitudinally were really bad. I'm sure I'm stating this incorrectly - I don't know the tech nomenclature - but in sum the author pretty much said side-to-side accuracy in the trajectory it was super solid, but it sucked really bad at calculated target distance. You are interpreting correctly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:10:23 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You just called bullshit on his post and then agreed with him that it's almost universally better to trade in extra HE for more precise targeting. I may have read his post incorrectly. If that is the case I apologize. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:13:22 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In the book I'm reading, the author makes the point many times that its deviations laterally were almost nonexistent, but its deviations longitudinally were really bad. I'm sure I'm stating this incorrectly - I don't know the tech nomenclature - but in sum the author pretty much said side-to-side accuracy in the trajectory it was super solid, but it sucked really bad at calculated target distance. That's pretty typical of high velocity guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:13:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In the book I'm reading, the author makes the point many times that its deviations laterally were almost nonexistent, but its deviations longitudinally were really bad. I'm sure I'm stating this incorrectly - I don't know the tech nomenclature - but in sum the author pretty much said side-to-side accuracy in the trajectory it was super solid, but it sucked really bad at calculated target distance. That's how all artillery is, and unfortunately, when the guns are behind your troops and the enemy in front that makes it a lot more dangerous if you use it to support troops. Not as big a deal for deep fires. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:14:40 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ................. What kind of SJW level of reading comprehension did it take to get "no one is using PGM" out of my post? Yesterday a guy online told me that people that don't want to bring back the 203mm aren't serious about fighting wars. The over 155mm stuff is all obsolete, but not everyone agrees about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:18:07 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What the 175mm brought to the fight in its day was range. It was the only artillery system we had in Vietnam that could out range every Soviet piece used by the NVA. The Israelis used them extensively against SAM sites in the Sinai in 1973. MLRS ultimately filled that role, but back in the day the range of the 175 was invaluable. NATO is funny, they wanted everyone to have a 30+ km Corps artillery piece, so they all bought RAP for their longest ranged systems. Now, they all use 52 caliber barrels to shoot long range. And length keeps going up, 54-60 is now a thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:19:42 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I may have read his post incorrectly. If that is the case I apologize. My point is that while both sides have been using PGM, UA is relying much more on PGM and Russia much more on massive firepower. And something that I realized a couple months ago: it isn't just that PGM does the job better than Mass Boom. PGM *precludes* Mass Boom. If you are trying to run the Mass Boom plan, then you also have to have correspondingly massive ammo dumps behind the lines to supply your forces. But they can't be too far behind the lines or they won't be of any use to the front. Those ammo dumps are golden catnip to the other side's longest range PGMs. And because they are freaking ammo dumps, it doesn't even take a particularly large warhead to wipe out a lot of supplies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:20:35 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yesterday a guy online told me that people that don't want to bring back the 203mm aren't serious about fighting wars. The over 155mm stuff is all obsolete, but not everyone agrees about that. There are people who still think the last word in military technology was the Iowa-class. Retards gonna retard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:23:02 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NO WTF I can't reply with just "NO" what is this BS I need a freaking Wall of Text to post? In GD, "NO+" is sufficient. It's a tenant of GD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:23:06 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, No and No.... Really? What would you consider hard then? A 50 ton vehicle with a giant barrel that fires a 250lb shell that requires a large crew (wiki says 14 men) can't be that easy, can it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:28:05 PM EDT
[#36]
"203mm"...
 Nobody ever called it a 203mm howitzer. 8-inch, people! A 50 ton vehicle with a giant barrel that fires a 250lb shell that requires a large crew (wiki says 14 men) can't be that easy, can it? WTF? 50 tons...? An M110A2 (the howitzer I crewed in Germany) didn't weigh anywhere near 50 fucking tons. A 4-square HE 'jo weighed just a bit over 200lbs, with a fuze installed. 250lbs...  The average section was 6-8 guys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:28:27 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My point is that while both sides have been using PGM, UA is relying much more on PGM and Russia much more on massive firepower. And something that I realized a couple months ago: it isn't just that PGM does the job better than Mass Boom. PGM *precludes* Mass Boom. If you are trying to run the Mass Boom plan, then you also have to have correspondingly massive ammo dumps behind the lines to supply your forces. But they can't be too far behind the lines or they won't be of any use to the front. Those ammo dumps are golden catnip to the other side's longest range PGMs. And because they are freaking ammo dumps, it doesn't even take a particularly large warhead to wipe out a lot of supplies. Yeah, we are in agreement. The modern battlefield is to dangerous to move across, let alone camp out on, and large munitions in large quantities aren't going to work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:41:40 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 50 tons...? An M110A2 (the howitzer I crewed in Germany) didn't weigh anywhere near 50 fucking tons. A 4-square HE 'jo weighed just a bit over 200lbs, with a fuze installed. 250lbs... The average section was 6-8 guys. How many dudes in the ammo section? And what did the powder weigh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:42:30 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "203mm"... Nobody ever called it a 203mm howitzer. 8-inch, people! WTF? 50 tons...? An M110A2 (the howitzer I crewed in Germany) didn't weigh anywhere near 50 fucking tons. A 4-square HE 'jo weighed just a bit over 200lbs, with a fuze installed. 250lbs... The average section was 6-8 guys. I'm describing the 203mm self propelled gun. 203mm SPG wiki |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:44:52 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryThe M110 that the US used (until 1994) is much lighter but also shorter ranged. Japan, Taiwan and Turkey still use it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:47:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Really? What would you consider hard then? A 50 ton vehicle with a giant barrel that fires a 250lb shell that requires a large crew (wiki says 14 men) can't be that easy, can it? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No, No and No.... Really? What would you consider hard then? A 50 ton vehicle with a giant barrel that fires a 250lb shell that requires a large crew (wiki says 14 men) can't be that easy, can it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:47:20 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: the so called 8” guns. I had a couple guys with me in the guard that crewed them before going guard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:50:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many dudes in the ammo section? And what did the powder weigh? Ammo (aka: "shammo" -13B's will get it  ) is a different entity altogether. In Germany, while each battery technically had an ammo section, we only saw them at formations while in garrison, or at ammo uploads while in the field. In 1CD, ammo was part of HHB (hindquarters & hindquarters battery).A charge 7 white bag powder weighed ~ 10lbs or so, IIRC (been almost 40 years). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:50:35 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty sure the army doesn't use artillery bigger than 155mm anymore. During the cold war years, mainly the 60s and 70s, the army had artillery up to 203mm. That's pretty damn big for an artillery piece on land. That's the same size gun that most heavy cruisers used during WWII. Some might still exist in storage somewhere and might be part of some other's country army. You can't blame them for phasing them out though. Something that big is hard to maintain and difficult to crew due to the size of the shells and equipment. Not to mention that is is cumbersome in a SPG role and probably difficult to tow. It seems that smaller caliber guns, rockets, and air power can do the just as well or better. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I was recently reading about them in a book about Vietnam, and the author was commenting on how they were apparently much less accurate than the 155mm howitzers, but pretty devastating when they could get them on target. Pretty sure the army doesn't use artillery bigger than 155mm anymore. During the cold war years, mainly the 60s and 70s, the army had artillery up to 203mm. That's pretty damn big for an artillery piece on land. That's the same size gun that most heavy cruisers used during WWII. Some might still exist in storage somewhere and might be part of some other's country army. You can't blame them for phasing them out though. Something that big is hard to maintain and difficult to crew due to the size of the shells and equipment. Not to mention that is is cumbersome in a SPG role and probably difficult to tow. It seems that smaller caliber guns, rockets, and air power can do the just as well or better. Big howitzer use big shells make big boom |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:51:57 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bullshit. More PGMs being used in this conflict than any major conflict in history. The 203mm howitzer was replaced with MLRS, and GMLRS can do with a single round what a battery of 203s would do. The 175mm sucked, they had a habit of blowing up that required maintenance crews to inspect and replace barrels regularly in the field. They were also famously inaccurate. The only thing they have going for them was range. Now, a 52 caliber 155 can hit the same range, and MLRS can go 2x as far and up to 4x as far with developmental rockets. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Also in recent decades - as the current war is extensively demonstrating - militaries have figured out that it is almost always better to trade boom for precision. Bullshit. More PGMs being used in this conflict than any major conflict in history. The 203mm howitzer was replaced with MLRS, and GMLRS can do with a single round what a battery of 203s would do. The 175mm sucked, they had a habit of blowing up that required maintenance crews to inspect and replace barrels regularly in the field. They were also famously inaccurate. The only thing they have going for them was range. Now, a 52 caliber 155 can hit the same range, and MLRS can go 2x as far and up to 4x as far with developmental rockets. What caused the inaccuracy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:53:46 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not 50 tons, closer to 28 tons, projectiles were about 200 lbs, and I never saw a 14 man section, more like 6 to 8. Was it hard work? Yup, Arty ain't for the weak. Best Damn Job I Ever Had. I guess wiki is describing the older model I guess. Times change I guess. Biggest gun I saw in person on deployment in Iraq was a 120mm mortar and we never had to use it. The go to for the brass was always a gunship if they needed support. Got to love air superiority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 9:56:18 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You young whippersnappers have no idea... Spearhead Special Weapons baby! https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOOpaIAWoAUN5AL.jpg:large I've had the opportunity to get hands on with 155mm and 8-inch special warheads on multiple occasions when I was on the PACOM PMCT/PAL team. USAF and Navy stuff too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 10:00:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What caused the inaccuracy? Not sure. But they commented on it all the way back when the first fielded it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 10:01:49 PM EDT
[#49]
My old man who was fdc on 8" and 175 batteries in nam might disagree
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2022 10:02:15 PM EDT
[#50]
The U.S. Army also had a 240mm (9.4") SPH for a time as well. These went away well before the 175s, though.
Railway pieces went away not long after WWII, but those included 203mm/8" guns (guns, not howitzers), 240mm howitzers (may have been guns; I'd have to look it up at this point), and 12"/305mm mortars. Anything bigger post-war were fixed pieces and not field or mobile siege/coastal pieces, and all major-caliber fixed guns, howitzers, and mortars were taken out of service before the end of the 1950s, IIRC. I think the railways stuff was done away by the same time. Most pieces of either type were decommissioned before the 1950s. We used to have some big stuff, up to 16", as far as land-based pieces went. Most of those units were converted to ADA, I believe. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
