Thread: M110 Self Propelled Howitzer

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

It was a good decision. Tried to do to much at once. And it grew into a 70 ton monster. If we had worked out all the kinks, how would we have deployed them?.

I don't think they'd be any harder to deploy than an Abrams.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Very effective. I served in an 8" Btry for a year (then we disbanded, 1988)...

The Army got rid of them because their mission, GSR, was replaced with MLRS...

Just as important, the cold war ended and the nuclear mission went away. The 8" special weapon was the most reliable one we had.

Swweeet! I was right! (Sorry, just felt like gloating a bit. )

So, Gun Grape: do you think that discarding them was a good idea, on the whole?

Another issue was strategic mobility. They weren't. That was the main reason that the USMC got rid of them.

Does this refer to airlift and such? Seems like that might have been the deciding factor, considering the current direction the military is taking.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Swweeet! I was right! (Sorry, just felt like gloating a bit. )

So, Gun Grape: do you think that discarding them was a good idea, on the whole?

Does this refer to airlift and such? Seems like that might have been the deciding factor, considering the current direction the military is taking.

Nothing wrong with gloating

Yes it was a good idea to retire them. MLRS had taken over the GS/GSR mission in a smaller package that was more mobile and offered greater striking power in about the same size package.

The Tac Nuc mission was gone so really no reason to keep them.

Their tubes did make a really neat deep penetrating bomb the GBU-28 of Desert Storm fame.

Kicking butt even in retirement

Originally Posted by Wraith601

I don't think they'd be any harder to deploy than an Abrams.

Actually alot harder. The firing platform is 10 feet longer than an Abrams. Then add another 27 feet for the resupply vehicle.

Its also 2ft taller than Abrams.

Those numbers mean alot when it comes to deck space on either a C-5 or a ship. Because of the weight you cannot shove a hummvee under the tube on a C-5. Dead space is bad space in the S-4s eyes.

We could have saved alot of money, and had just as capable system if we had either installed a 52 cal barrel on the M-109A6 chassis, or used the PzH2000.

Both would have filled the bill. For deployability reasons I understand why we stick with the 38 cal barrels. Rounds like excaliber will close the gap.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

I can pull into a position, with a towed 198 howitzer, drop trails, lay, shoot 10 rds and be out of that pos in 10 min.

I can do it in a M-109 or M-110 in less than 5.

MLRS has to let the gyros spin up. From a presurveyed position they can also do it in 5 min.

GunNut that 13 man crew is a "Nice to have" I have never seen more than 7. Normally 5. In a emergency you can operate with 3.

"exposed to the environment"? Thats what we do. But FYI their is a cab cover that provides min ballistic protection and cuts exposure down. Saw it once when we were about 30 miles north of Tromso Norway. The coldest I've ever been was in a M-109. That Alum gets cold

Sorry, I was merely extrapolating from the theoreticals . Nice to have someone with first hand information to bust some myths.

Given the choice, would you rather have M-109 or M-110? Or a better quetsion, would you rather have 6" guns with proper chassis or 8" guns with proper chassis?

I'm thinking it's kind of apples and oranges. Not that I really know anything, but the M110 and the M109 filled different roles. M109 is more mobile, lighter, easier to handle. M110 has more power and range, but has those mother massive shells to deal with. So the M109 fills the direct support role, taking out positions that are called in to it. Basically, "help, we're gonna die if you don't take out those mortars" kind of thing. M110 filled the general support role, which I guess is a little less immediate, kind of the difference between interdiction and close air support in air warfare. So an M110 would maybe take out headquarters, pin down an armored column moving up to reinforce the line, that sort of thing. And of course tactical nukes. But all that's mostly extrapolation on my part. I expect Gun Grape will be around soon to explain how far off the mark I am.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Given the choice, would you rather have M-109 or M-110? Or a better quetsion, would you rather have 6" guns with proper chassis or 8" guns with proper chassis?

Rather have a 09 of the two choices. But I prefer a towed 155, like the M-777,
than a SP any day.

A few reasons, the first being mobility. If my 09/110 breaks down and we are on the move, then I'm out 1 tube until it gets fixxed and finally marries back up to the battery. If the Truck towing my M-777/M-198 breaks down, I can transfer the howitzer, gear and ammo to other vehicles in the convoy. Havn't lost any firepower.

On a good day the 198 is airlift capable by CH-53E and CH-47. The MV-22 can lift the M-777. (although it would be stupid to do it).

Both can be carried in a C-130.

None of the SPs can.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

I'm thinking it's kind of apples and oranges. Not that I really know anything, but the M110 and the M109 filled different roles. M109 is more mobile, lighter, easier to handle. M110 has more power and range, but has those mother massive shells to deal with. So the M109 fills the direct support role, taking out positions that are called in to it. Basically, "help, we're gonna die if you don't take out those mortars" kind of thing. M110 filled the general support role, which I guess is a little less immediate, kind of the difference between interdiction and close air support in air warfare. So an M110 would maybe take out headquarters, pin down an armored column moving up to reinforce the line, that sort of thing. And of course tactical nukes. But all that's mostly extrapolation on my part. I expect Gun Grape will be around soon to explain how far off the mark I am.

Pretty darn close. In the Army the 109 fills the Direct support role as you stated.

In the Marine Corps the 09 filled the General Support Role That being we took fire missions from higher authority. We were the Regt/Div commanders guns. So we did the battleshaping. While the DS batteries are firing the missions that you stated the GS guns might be laying a ADAMs/RAAMs minefield to keep the enemy that was engaged from being reenforced. The 110s at that time might be doing counterbattery fire or hitting enemy assembly areas.

If the DS units needed more oomph, then the 8" would provide "extra" fire (GSR)

Something I'm not ashame to admit. The Marine Corps never had those fancy tracked ammo carriers so we offloaded the ammo trucks by hand. Going from a battery that had 105mm (45lbs) and 155 mm (96-110lbs) the first time they threw
a 8" round on my shoulder (that i needed to hump about 50 feet to the gun) it crushed me. I got maybe 15 feet before I dropped it. I thought my knees would explode or my back shoot out my butt.

Did I mention that they weigh 204lbs. Started hitting the gym more often.

The 8" is a single shell? I thought it would be the seperate type with powder bags. Or was that much older design? And you guys were expected to carry them manually? How long can you keep that up?

Originally Posted by gunnut

The 8" is a single shell? I thought it would be the seperate type with powder bags. Or was that much older design? And you guys were expected to carry them manually? How long can you keep that up?

No the 8" is seperate loading. The projo weighs 204Lbs.

A full powder charge weighed around 50lbs.

We normally didn't have to carry them often. Each gun was assigned an ammo truck, but when FDC messed up or we needed a few more rounds for a mission, we humped them.

You kept it up until the job was done.