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: New M-109 Replaces Old M-109
SYSOP    5/14/2014 4:13:22 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
pzkwmkv    39 caliber    5/14/2014 11:48:35 AM

Is there a plan to upgrade the cannon from 39 caliber to 45 or 52 caliber? If not, why not?

 
Quote    Reply

royrdsjr       5/14/2014 12:23:30 PM


Is there a plan to upgrade the cannon from 39 caliber to 45 or 52 caliber? If not, why not?


  I agree with this question,is there a reason why extending the size of the barrel from 39 caliber to 52 caliber is impractical? I know that BAE offered an international version of the M109 with a 52 caliber barrel. 
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       5/14/2014 2:06:49 PM
Longer barrel =shorter rifling life.
 
Range improvement is not worth the added (expensive) cost. 38 caliber is the sweet spot.  
 
 
Quote    Reply

pzkwmkv    Keffler   5/15/2014 11:32:49 AM
Why does a longer barrel equal shorter barrel life? Propellant gases staying in tube longer? Higher pressure in tube because shell stays in in tube longer or a combination of the two?
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       5/15/2014 1:40:33 PM
Simple. More heat and more metal on metal erosion.
 
Quote    Reply

royrdsjr       5/16/2014 3:08:34 PM

Simple. More heat and more metal on metal erosion.
Would this logic also work as a reason against extending the length of the M1 Tank cannon from 44 caliber to 55 caliber?
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       5/16/2014 3:25:59 PM
For a smoothhore? Why? It has no rifling to wear down nor torque moment on the projectile to cause metal on metal erosion as much as the rifled barrel does. Heat may be a factor, but not to as significant degree. I would argue barrel droop and trunnion weight might be bigger problems.   
Simple. More heat and more metal on metal erosion.
Would this logic also work as a reason against extending the length of the M1 Tank cannon from 44 caliber to 55 caliber?
 
Quote    Reply

HeavyD       8/29/2014 6:36:52 PM
Is anyone at Ft Sill keeping tabs on what Israel is doing with their M109s?  As in replacing them with precision rockets?
 
The only place a 155 belongs is mounted on a M1 chassis for a true assault gun/tank.  Rockets are easier to deploy, easier for precision (lower g force at launch), and more cost-effective per target hit.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

keffler25       8/30/2014 1:14:29 AM
Then explain why the howitzer is still the indirect fire preferred point target hit weapon? Rockets go wild if the PGM guidance fails. Ballistics always works if the angle solutions and charges are correct.  
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

HeavyD       8/30/2014 1:39:39 AM
If ballistics always worked, then the Israelis would have been happy with the results from the 120,000 155mm shells they lobbed into Lebanon.  Turns out that the CEP is too great to be effective against hard targets.  Hence their wholesale move away from ballistic to precision guided munitions.
 
So, no.  Howitzers are not the 'preferred' point target indirect fire weapon.  Precision is 'preferred'.  Saturation and collateral damage is accepted when precision is not available.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics