Thread: M110 Self Propelled Howitzer

I was just looking at the M110 on Global Security yesterday. It was the most accurate indirect fire system in the US Army, and had good range, especially with the long barrel version. I believe it was considered very effective. I believe a large reason for discarding them was MLRS. Both are long range corps level artillery weapons, and the MLRS was found to be very effective. I'm just speculating, but I expect that the Army decided that MLRS was sufficient for its heavy artillery needs, especially since the nuclear capability of the M110 is no longer required. Of course, now they're working on guided rounds for MLRS. I wonder if they now wish they had kept the unguided (and therefore, cheap) yet accurate 203 mm howitzer.

Especially sine the same chassis could easiy accomodate the 175mm gun, which less accurate and lacking the punch of the 203 had even longer range, 30 km unassisted I believe. I think it'd nice to have a battalion or two of these in the corps level arty brigades.

The more I look at it the cooler artillery becomes.

They take too many men to operate.

It takes 3 guys in an MLRS to fire 12 rockets. They zip in and they zip out. Hard to find them.

It takes 13 men to operate a single tube of M-110 or M-107. You need 2 or 3 vehicles, setting up the site, and the crew is entirely exposed to the environment.

Artillery is great for sustained bombardment. But I don't think it's in the US army's planning in the immediate future.

I assume you mean gun artillery. Artillery as a whole is most certainly in the Army's plans. I expect that we'll keep a 155 mm gun or something like that, because there are definite advantages to guns vs rockets. At least the army seems to think so, judging from the Crusader program. Don't really know much about the NLOS thingy, but I believe it includes an indirect fire gun system. As far as I'm concerned, artillery is still the "Queen of Battle."

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

I assume you mean gun artillery. Artillery as a whole is most certainly in the Army's plans. I expect that we'll keep a 155 mm gun or something like that, because there are definite advantages to guns vs rockets. At least the army seems to think so, judging from the Crusader program. Don't really know much about the NLOS thingy, but I believe it includes an indirect fire gun system. As far as I'm concerned, artillery is still the "Queen of Battle."

Cancelling the Crusader was a moronic decision if you ask me.

Also, artillery is the King of Battle, infantry is the Queen of Battle.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

I assume you mean gun artillery. Artillery as a whole is most certainly in the Army's plans. I expect that we'll keep a 155 mm gun or something like that, because there are definite advantages to guns vs rockets. At least the army seems to think so, judging from the Crusader program. Don't really know much about the NLOS thingy, but I believe it includes an indirect fire gun system. As far as I'm concerned, artillery is still the "Queen of Battle."

Yes, my apologies, I meant gun artillery.

M-107/M-110 just take too many men to operate. MLRS takes 3 men. M-109 takes 6 men.

Both MLRS and M-109 have enclosed hull while M-107/M-110 crew is exposed.

I believe the M-107/M-110 are phased out because they take too man men to operate and are slow to set up, unlike M-109. Speed is of the essence on a mobile battle field, which is what US Army excels at.

Artillery is important, but less so in the US Army, at least not in the conventional way of static deployment of batteries upon batteries of gun tubes. US Army has lots of other toys to deliver ordinance down range.

Originally Posted by gunnut

M-107/M-110 just take too many men to operate. MLRS takes 3 men. M-109 takes 6 men.

Once you add in reloads, guns are on par.

Let's face it, nothing can match howitzer batteries for sheer volume of rate.

Originally Posted by Wraith601

Let's face it, nothing can match howitzer batteries for sheer volume of rate.

I beg to differ, a battery of MBRLs fireing a slavo (with initial load) can turn a company defended locality into Swiss cheese in about 20-30 seconds, and can switch positions, and this is much faster than a heavier howitzer battery.

Originally Posted by lemontree

I beg to differ, a battery of MBRLs fireing a slavo (with initial load) can turn a company defended locality into Swiss cheese in about 20-30 seconds, and can switch positions, and this is much faster than a heavier howitzer battery.

They fire much faster yes, but how much longer are their reload times?

I say hit them with both, there's no such thing as too much artillery.

Originally Posted by Wraith601

They fire much faster yes, but how much longer are their reload times?
I say hit them with both, there's no such thing as too much artillery.

True, it takes about 10 minutes to relaod them. But if I am not mistaken, some countries do advocate a mixture of both systems.

However, the employment of MBRLs is a little different than that of howitzers/ field guns. Some role better suited to MBRLs are:
- Counter battery fire.
- Shelling fast moving enemy forces, like armour or mech units.
- Saturation fire.
- Shore defence.

Primarily MBRL systems enable one to hit targets at larger ranges more economically than howitzers.

Howitzers are excellent for sustained fire, that is primarily needed during attack and defence operations. Adjusting fire as per battle field requirements is what gives the howitzers/ field guns an edge over the MBRL systems.

speaking for PLA only.

Counter battery fire and Shore defence roles are reserved for Gun-hows, not MRL.

back to your regular programming.

Originally Posted by Wraith601

I was doing some research for a discussion elsewhere and I came across this beast. Does anyone know why it was phased out of US service and just how effective it really was?

M110 SPH

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.

Other issues were maint. The Chassis were mid-late 60s and designed for a much lighter tube. The 110A1 and A2 really maxxed the suspension with the long tube.

I've busted torsion bars, blown the hydro system due to firing shock.

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

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

At one time each 8in battery had 6 203mm tubes and 4 175mm tubes. We could mix and match what we took to the field depending on what ammo was avaliable.

The 175 was innacurate and the tube was so long that you had to correct for tube droop. The machined surface at the end of the tube would normally be 2- 2.5 mils lower in elevation than the breech at 0 mills. The tube also flexed when shot.

Originally Posted by gunnut

They take too many men to operate.

It takes 3 guys in an MLRS to fire 12 rockets. They zip in and they zip out. Hard to find them.

It takes 13 men to operate a single tube of M-110 or M-107. You need 2 or 3 vehicles, setting up the site, and the crew is entirely exposed to the environment.

Artillery is great for sustained bombardment. But I don't think it's in the US army's planning in the immediate future.

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