Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: M-110E2
buyer    2/5/2006 5:41:04 PM
Anybody know what ever happened to the development of a bigger 8 inch brother of the M-110? Some 25 years ago I recall a fatigue test of the beast at Aberdeen and never heard anything else about it? Been out of touch with the cannon er world since then.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
ArtyEngineer    RE:M-110E2   2/5/2006 6:00:35 PM
Do you mean this beast?"> I take it the non-E2 version had a shorter tube?
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:M-110E2   2/5/2006 6:21:39 PM
Tiny little gun, you should see what the Russian stuck on a T10.
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:M-110E2   2/5/2006 7:06:05 PM
Definitly a shorter tube. The M110 we had in the 12th Marines had a tube that slightly cleared the front edge of the chasiss. My memorys are vague, but we were told the decison was made to replace the long range 'guns' with rockets/missles was made in the 1970s. That stuck & the various guns like the 175mm were sold off to the Koreans ect... Eventually the large bore howitzers like the 8" followed, leaving the 155mm M198 the sole medium cannon.
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:M-110E2   2/5/2006 7:42:08 PM
->"...leaving the 155mm M198 the sole medium cannon." And a pathetcically weak POS at that, compared to other nations who have pursued the newer L45 and L52 guns that reach much greater ranges unassisted. Even the M109 Paladin cannot match the latest SP guns such as the PzH2000 (and a host of other we could actually find ourselves on the reciving end of, years down the road). Seems too many people are giving into the "lighter, faster, farther" mentality, and hoping we never fall under the effects of artillery that outshoots us. (we have had difficult-enough times in Iraq and Afghanistan when caught off-guard by "lowly" mortar fire and we have to wait a few precious minutes for CAS assets to do anything about it.) Much as I do appreciate people like ArtyEngineer and his Excalibur project, I still think we are selling our troops short when we procure shorter-ranged base weaponry than what our potential adversaries are buying (the guns, not the munitions). Inaccurate or not, even unguided projectiles landing in the wrong place at the wrong time can be disastrous for us. As far as using 8" guns, we have such a discussion going on over in the Surface Forces threads. Especially where land forces are concerned, the MLRS gives a much-expanded response capability than the M110 SP gun. Is that picture actually an M110E2 (prototype?), or is it a 175mm M107? Anyone have any stats on its anticipated gun performance?> Now that's a long gun!
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:M-110E2   2/5/2006 7:57:01 PM
I was at Sill when we first received the new M110A2, don't remember the barrel-length, but I believe range pushed out to 24k from 16.1k, addition of Charge 9 propellant as well? IIRC, 30k with RAP. This picture looks at least mid-late sixties, maybe earlier. White vehicle numerics on side of chassis.
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    RE:M-110E2 - doggtag   2/5/2006 11:17:59 PM
Agree with you 100%, range is everything in my opinion, Excalibur is all well and good, but at an objective price of $30,000 a pop(right now each "Golden Bullet" costs $140,000 or there abouts), it will firmly remain as a special purpose/mission munition. The decision to make N-LOS C a 38 cal tube with a chamber which will only take a MACS zone 4 charge totally blows my mind!!!! Especially as the weight requirement has gone up. Smells of politics to me as there isnt a valid operational or technical reason for this that I can see. The US newest sp howitzer will be even shorter ranged than the M109 when firing conventional munitions. That aint right, and I make my feelings known on that every chance I get.
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE:M-110E2   2/6/2006 5:24:04 AM
M110 - short barrel, no muzzlebrake, ch 7, FT max rg 16.8 km M110A1 - long barrel, no muzzlebrake, chg 8, max rg around 24km IIRC M110A2 - long barrel, muzzlebrake, chg 9, max rg nudging towards 29 km IIRC
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Range the Holy Grail   2/6/2006 8:56:04 AM
I've always agreed with the idea that US artillery need more range. The MLRS was never fielded in the right numbers or mix or with the ammo types needed for it to fill the role of the cannon it replaced. Everytime I participated in a fire planning exercise the deficiency of US artillery range was driven home. Did not matter if we were planning a fight vs North Korea or vs the latest model Soviet army a major point of friction in fire planning was killing off the enemy long range artillery. Invariably 5 to 10% of it was out of reach of our own tubes. Another 10-15% could not be attacked properly due to range preventing optimal massing of batterys. The assumption was the USAF would pick up the gap, which looked a weak promise even in our idealized map exercises. In the 1980s we Marines were able to deploy a more reliable air support and had a residual naval gunfire, but these were much weakend in the 1990s. Back in the early 1980s one particular exercise rammed home the weakness in range. In it a US light infantry divsion was deployed into Nicaragua. A hand full of enemy 122mm & 152mm cannon battalions clearly out ranged the US 105mm howitzers. Nearly half the enemy batterys could not be attacked with properly massed fires. Aggravating this was that the entrenched enemy artillery was much less damaged by the light 105mm ammo. Range prevented massing the multibattalion missions needed to nuetralize the Nicaruagan batterys. The USAF participants in the exercise had to flail about rewriting their ATO & take related actions before they could address the problem. The ultimate result was a 8-12 hour period when a third rate armys artillery dominated the battle. : ( Experince has made me skeptical of the idea that current US high tech will dominate for the long run. That sort of arrogance tripped up the Chinese army in 1979, brought the Soviet army to grief in Afganistan, and the nazi led Wehrmacht repeatedly between 1941 & 1944. Anyway, an artillery weapon that can consistently put leathal ammo on target at long range is badly needed. I'm not much concerned about the exact nature of this artillery - cannon, rocket/missle, electromagnetic, whatever. As long as the corps commander owns the ability to mass a leathal ammount of ammo anywhere in his AO in just a few minutes regardless of weather or enemy air defense I'd be happy.
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Range the Holy Grail   2/6/2006 9:23:39 AM
Great points, Carl S. 8 gun 155mm btry w/ 2 four gun platoons was the direct result of range. We imposed severe penalties upon ourselves by exposing our platoons to near constant displacements in order to be able to mass fires on a fluid battlefield. We shot less missions, were more exposed to RACO security issues both while road-marching and when emplaced, complicated our service, support, and re-supply, created more signatures, and occupied more of the very confined (at times)battlespace. All necessary when living under the opponent's artillery fan. Frankly, w/ 5 to 10km of range, I could handle a counterfire fight comfortably (those 130mm guns were a bit of a problem). But we never had it-and we still don't. Hey Neutralizer, thanks for the refresher. Great guns, even without the overhead protection.
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Range the Holy Grail   2/6/2006 12:46:51 PM
I suspose theres issues on this I'm no longer up on... but the achive my goal I'd probably put the short term development/procurement into an improved MLRS & related systems. Jump the range up and a lot more flexiblity in ammo options. Raise the numbers of MLRS units in the divsion/corps artillery pool to a ratio of one per manuver brigade.
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT