Page 3 of 43 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 632

Thread: Ask An Expert- LAND Forces.

  1. #31
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    20 Jun 07
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia.
    Posts
    2,578
    Quote Originally Posted by T_igger_cs_30 View Post
    ps.......... Also who you talking to ? seem to be answering a lot of questions there but to who ?
    Missed out the quotes lol

  2. #32
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    România
    Posts
    1,700
    I was wondering what was the average barrel life for light field howitzers ( 75 mm to 105 mm ) in ww2 ?
    J'ai en marre.

  3. #33
    Military Professional wabpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Dec 03
    Location
    Commuting between Dresden and Ft. Worth
    Posts
    620
    When I got to advanced jets, we were flying the F-9F-8T (TF-9 in tri-service designation). The Cougar had two 20mm machine guns with 100 rounds of ammo each. Part of the sylibus was to practice strafing. The Navy way to strafe was more or less fly the landing pattern fast and shoot instead of land. It was great fun, but I'm not sure how effective we would have really been. For some of our flights, the Navy would haul out some old tanks as targets. It looked like the whole squadron could shoot up the tanks without doing a lot of damage to them. Of course, the tanks couldn't shoot back. I did a tour as a IFR check pilot in the TF-9 later in my career, I swear the Navy had the same old tanks out on the range and they were still in decent shape.

    Finally, I got tired of flying over those tanks. I talked the VT ops officer into letting me load one of his Cougars with Mk-82s and have a try at the tanks! (OK, it's absolutely insane that a VT even had an inventory of Mk-82, but it gets worse, we had nuclear training shapes too. I had to qual with those. GRRRRR...the curse of being F-4 rated.) I launched with Ops on my wing. I think he wanted to kill those tanks as much as I did. Now, the Cougar will only carry two Mk-82s and it's bomb sight is derived from the LABS nuclear bombing system. Thus, it's not all that accurate. But, I was, I thought, pretty current at using the LABS to drop bombs. That's what I'd been doing in Viet Nam with pretty good results. Ops Officer was a Tonkin Gulf Flying Club member too, so we thought we were Hotel Sierra. Well two passes each and only one near miss. The near miss did flip one of the tanks upside down according to the range safety officer. I suppose that was a kill, but the damned tank looked OK except for being upside down! It stayed that way for a couple of years until the Marines parted with some more tanks and the Navy decided to replace my upside down tank with a newer one.

  4. #34
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,367
    Quote Originally Posted by 1979 View Post
    I was wondering what was the average barrel life for light field howitzers ( 75 mm to 105 mm ) in ww2 ?
    For the 105mm M1a2 howitzer(Later renomenclatured the M101) it was around 5 thousand Equivilent Full Charge rounds. That would be 1 M1 HE round fired at full charge= 1 EFC. Fired at a lower powder charge or a different round/charge combination could/would possibly count less. 1 M1 HE fired at charge 3 = .25 EFC In that case it takes 4 actual rounds fired to equil 1 round as far as tube life goes.

    Tube life also would depend on other factors such as maintenance, shooting clean ammo and what theater. Iwo Jima with lots of salt air,fine sand and volcanic ash would have been much harder on tube wear than say Italy in the summer.

    In the end, when the gun starts shooting out of allowable parameters the maintenance team will conduct a pullover gage reading before changing out a barrel.

  5. #35
    Senior Contributor 1979's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 09
    Location
    România
    Posts
    1,700
    Thank you for the detailed reply.
    How many rounds were allocated per gun per day ? (as supply not actual use )
    Last edited by 1979; 03 Aug 11, at 09:12.
    J'ai en marre.

  6. #36
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,367
    Quote Originally Posted by 1979 View Post
    Thank you for the detailed reply.
    How many rounds were allocated per gun per day ? (as supply not actual use )
    No easy answer for that question. It would depend on many variables.

    Was the gun in Direct Support? General Support? General Support reinforcing?

    Was the guns unit assigned to support a major attack? A feint? A infantry unit in the defense that was expecting to be attacked? Harassment fire? Interdiction missions? Counterbattery?

    What theater? And lastly, what was the supply situation at the time?

    Looking throughout after action reports you will find that at times batteries have been allocated as few as 5-10 rounds per day per gun up to a couple of hundred per day/gun

  7. #37
    Contributor Wayfarer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Feb 10
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    498
    What is the future of armor? Is it going to get bigger and heavier or lighter and lighter?

  8. #38
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    No easy answer for that question. It would depend on many variables.

    Was the gun in Direct Support? General Support? General Support reinforcing?

    Was the guns unit assigned to support a major attack? A feint? A infantry unit in the defense that was expecting to be attacked? Harassment fire? Interdiction missions? Counterbattery?

    What theater? And lastly, what was the supply situation at the time?

    Looking throughout after action reports you will find that at times batteries have been allocated as few as 5-10 rounds per day per gun up to a couple of hundred per day/gun
    As the good Gunny has said it was always dependent on the theater, the priorities of fires and the mission.

    In World War 2, in early to mid 1942 the South West APcific had the initial priorities of supply until the build up for TORCH when it shifted to the European theater. At different stages and places the amount of rounds fired per unit per day were dependent on the supply situation. In late autumn 1944 there was a severe shortage of 105mm ammo world wide and in the ETO some units were restricted to 5 rounds per barrel per day despite the ETO having the second highest priority rating after the Manhattan Project.

    Production lines which had been converted to other calibers had to be rapidly retooled to produce more 105mm...and they never really caught up. The artillery got more effective by more widespread use of VT fuses to help make up for the shortfall.
    "The genius of you Americans is that you make no clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing." - Gamal Abdel Nasser

  9. #39
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,165
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayfarer View Post
    What is the future of armor? Is it going to get bigger and heavier or lighter and lighter?
    Do you mean tanks specifically or armored vehicles in general?

    We will see tanks on the modern battlefield for quite some time to come because of how of the ability to pack shock, firepower and mobility into a single package.

    The real question is really what will the mix of armor forces be? For the US Army we will see the current mix of half the combat power of a heavy brigade combat team being tanks....the other half IFVs. We have done away with our armored cavalry regiments...they are all Stryker units.

    In Israel you will see a heavy dependence on tanks because fo the nature of the conflicts they may engage in.

    For a country like Australia what are tanks used for? Infantry support? AT? Counterattack? The Australian Army needs to look at their requirements (which I am sure they are) and determine the specific force mix.
    "The genius of you Americans is that you make no clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing." - Gamal Abdel Nasser

  10. #40
    Seņor Contributor Senior Contributor BD1's Avatar
    Join Date
    30 Nov 06
    Location
    estonia
    Posts
    2,836
    question - on local mil.board one guy guessed that it would be possible to mount 1-2 120mm. mortars on a hooklift/PLS/DROPS platform, in order to better the mobility and to make use of civilian trucks. but will the platform, if laid on ground by truck, be stable enough to mount 105mm./122mm. howitzer (D-30), a Grad launcher or something else or is the recoil too heavy?
    If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

    Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

  11. #41

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,764
    Check out this video-



    Is this along the line of your question? If so, I've two questions for you, 1.) How is mobility enhanced as opposed to towing a light weapon such as an M 102 105mm Howitzer and, 2.) Why would you sacrifice valuable cargo space that could carry ammunition, tools and camoflauge netting to service the weapon?

    I choose the M 102 105mm Howitzer because it possesses a baseplate that's depressed to the ground and held in place by stakes. The baseplate has a small diameter that doesn't exceed the wheels and allows for rapid 6400 mil traverse-



    Were the weapon to be mounted on a platform with holes drilled through the platform allowing the weapon to be staked to the ground once displaced it might be feasible.

    I'd still be unconvinced that it would be efficient use of space, more mobile or emplaced as rapidly.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  12. #42
    Seņor Contributor Senior Contributor BD1's Avatar
    Join Date
    30 Nov 06
    Location
    estonia
    Posts
    2,836
    thanks, Steve. that load system and D-30 122mm. howitzer combo* was what i meant. we have some dozens of these and as one artillery officer wrote, these are getting bit long in teeth - taking position
    and leaving it takes time (esp. with these stakes), as i understand it, definately more than 5 min. and leaving about as much, and 3.3t gun needs 7-8 men to manhandle to position. besides, this gun is towed by lunette, which makes it a bit different laying into position. but if the platform needs the stakes anyway, then yes, it does not improve things much.

    as seen in your video, the unloading takes about 90 seconds, loading prob. a bit longer. i thought that getting away from counterbattery fire under 2 minutes would be good for morale

    * i put 105mm. in as i thought people here are more familiar with itīs recoil
    If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

    Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

  13. #43

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,764
    Ville,

    I guess my thought was that with an M102 105mm How system the stakes could be driven through the base plate along with pre-drilled holes in the load platform. This would adequately anchor the system sufficient to accept its recoil. Emplacement and displacement wouldn't seem any quicker and would be complicated/slowed by having to first drop an ammo/tool trailer.

    I know a bit about the D-30 122mm How (we had one at Fort Sill, Ok). The weapon would have to be off-loaded and then the trails spread, locked, and lowered before staking (see attached photo).

    So long as the trails could be directly ground-staked then I'd see no problem with recoil. There is the problem, however, of the transportation platform. It must be sufficiently narrow for the truck-bed AND to assure the trails (when spread) exceed platform dimensions yet still be permanently affixed to the howitzer's superstructure.

    Finally, again, ammo. These weapons possess a relatively high rate of sustained fire. They're intended to somewhat compensate for weight of shot by saturation. As such, they're expected to expend a lot of ammo. While emplaced, the transport vehicle can haul ammo loads but without a trailer there's no basic load of consequence that can be transported along with the weapon.

    The Soviet answer to your dilemma of crew survivability and high mobility was the 2S1 122mm S.P Howitzer. It's the only viable answer I can see. I understand, however, you're stuck with a large number of towed weapons that don't currently satisfy this requirement. Given the small size of your nation, however, is it not possible to identify the primary avenues of approach and build fortifications along those routes that would accomodate these D-30 systems?
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  14. #44
    Seņor Contributor Senior Contributor BD1's Avatar
    Join Date
    30 Nov 06
    Location
    estonia
    Posts
    2,836
    would that be cheaper than getting something new with bit more range? what will the US do with their M198 now that M777 is replacing it?

    anyway, thanks for your help Steve, back to drawing board
    If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

    Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

  15. #45

    Military Professional
    Military Professional S2's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 06
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    10,764

    BD1 Reply

    "...what will the US do with their M198 now that M777 is replacing it?"

    That's a good question which I can't answer. The M198 is an excellent weapon. Perhaps Albany Rifles or Artillery Engineer know. They may be available through our foreign military sales or they might all have been pushed down to our nat'l guard and U.S. Army Reserve.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Land Forces Quiz
    By smilingassassin in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 1067
    Last Post: 06 Dec 16,, 14:55
  2. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07 May 08,, 05:22
  3. Flatulence Forces Plane to Land
    By Shek in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10 Dec 06,, 05:42
  4. Turkish Land Forces
    By AlpErTunga in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03 Jul 06,, 02:14
  5. How Good Is India's Land Forces
    By Kontakt Era in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 10 Feb 05,, 18:13

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •