![]() |
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Title Classified
Senior Contributor
|
M110 Self Propelled Howitzer
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
__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France." -Sir Arthur Wellesley |
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Devil's Advocate
Senior Contributor
|
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.
__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable." -Theodore Dalrymple |
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Title Classified
Senior Contributor
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 01-27-06
Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 16,048
Country:
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
Devil's Advocate
Senior Contributor
|
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."
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) | |
|
Title Classified
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
Also, artillery is the King of Battle, infantry is the Queen of Battle. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 (permalink) | |
|
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 01-27-06
Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 16,048
Country:
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) | |
|
Bandaid
Military Professional
|
Quote:
__________________
Cheers!...on the rocks!! |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 (permalink) | |
|
Title Classified
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
I say hit them with both, there's no such thing as too much artillery. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 (permalink) | |
|
Bandaid
Military Professional
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 (permalink) | |
|
Resident Curmudgeon
Military Professional
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 (permalink) | |
|
Resident Curmudgeon
Military Professional
|
Quote:
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
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Share this thread with friends: |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Twin Gun Self Propelled Howitzer "Coalition-SV" | Garry | Land Forces | 12 | 04-19-2007 11:47 AM |
| Pzh-2000 GR | KORNET-E | NATO & The Russian Resurgence | 3 | 12-26-2006 11:16 AM |
| Silencer for Howitzer ? | bichler | Land Forces | 9 | 01-06-2006 02:30 AM |
| M777 Howitzer Booms at Pendleton | Y W F | Land Forces | 7 | 09-20-2005 12:02 PM |
| Murky Competition for $2B India Howitzer Order May End Soon | Endangered | Land Forces | 1 | 09-02-2005 01:13 AM |