User Panel
Posted: 12/9/2022 8:12:30 PM EDT
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.
|
|
NO
WTF I can't reply with just "NO" what is this BS I need a freaking Wall of Text to post? |
|
|
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. View Quote 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. |
|
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. View Quote |
|
|
The 8 inch and 175s went away a long time ago. Juice wasn't worth the squeeze.
|
|
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. View Quote 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. |
|
|
MLRS in addition to advancements in the requirements for fire and our doctrine made them obsolete
|
|
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 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 |
|
The video posted today of the Russians getting trashed, what MM are Ukes using?
|
|
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. View Quote 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. |
|
Nope. They were terrible. My Field Artillery FIL said they were so inaccurate the Vietnamese probably sold them to us.
|
|
|
Quoted: NO WTF I can't reply with just "NO" what is this BS I need a freaking Wall of Text to post? View Quote Lorem Ipsum text generator. |
|
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 View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 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 File https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_atomic_cannon |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 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. |
|
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 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. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote 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 |
|
|
Does the Army still employ 175mm self-propelled guns? View Quote No, they were all fired... |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote ................. What kind of SJW level of reading comprehension did it take to get "no one is using PGM" out of my post? |
|
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 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. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote |
|
Quoted: You young whippersnappers have no idea... Spearhead Special Weapons baby! https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOOpaIAWoAUN5AL.jpg:large View Quote Thats probably one of the coolest pictures I’ve ever seen here |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote You are interpreting correctly. |
|
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote That's pretty typical of high velocity guns. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: ................. What kind of SJW level of reading comprehension did it take to get "no one is using PGM" out of my post? View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: I may have read his post incorrectly. If that is the case I apologize. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote There are people who still think the last word in military technology was the Iowa-class. Retards gonna retard. |
|
|
|
"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? View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote How many dudes in the ammo section? And what did the powder weigh? |
|
Quoted: "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. View Quote I'm describing the 203mm self propelled gun. 203mm SPG wiki |
|
View Quote The M110 that the US used (until 1994) is much lighter but also shorter ranged. Japan, Taiwan and Turkey still use it. |
|
Quoted: 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? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
|
Quoted: How many dudes in the ammo section? And what did the powder weigh? View Quote 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). |
|
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 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 |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 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? |
|
Quoted: 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. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted: You young whippersnappers have no idea... Spearhead Special Weapons baby! https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EOOpaIAWoAUN5AL.jpg:large View Quote 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. |
|
|
My old man who was fdc on 8" and 175 batteries in nam might disagree
|
|
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. |
|
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.