Self Propelled Artillery Question

[JALU3]

Can someone more knowledgeable than I in the realm of Field Artillery (not to be confused with Coastal Artillery or Air Defense Artillery) explain to me why the M107s, and M110s were not modernized or retained? Why is it that the 155mm and 105mm Howitzers have become the standard artillery sizes? Would it be possible, or feasible for new 175mm and 8 Inch Artillery to be produced and fielded in either the Self Propelled, or towed arrangement?

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'll attempt to field that question, but my experience has mostly been with towed artillery.


Why is it that the 155mm and 105mm Howitzers have become the standard artillery sizes?
Versatility and air-portability. Both the M198 and the older M102 are transportable by CH46 Sea Knight and CH47 Chinook Medium Lift helicopters. IIRC, those particular round sizes also have good ballistic qualities. I only know for sure about the 155, but it can be fired up to 21 miles in favorable conditions and even farther with rocket-assisted projectiles. The 155mm round can carry HE, WP, scatter mine, and DPICM(dual-purpose improved conventional) munitions with variable fuses. Used properly, a single battery of 5 guns can devestate a grid square in under a minute, owing to the quick reload times (about 6 rounds per minute with a good crew, something you';ll not see from an 8-inch howitzer with comprable range) and unerring accuracy provided by the AFATIS ( it think thats the acronymn.:hmmm: not sure what it stands for,but it is pronounced aff-ay-tis)fire-control computer system.

Perhaps even more importantly, the 155mm round was developed out of the XM8 mobile gun system program, which I believe began in 70's. Like other programs that were undertaken around the same time, sheer political inertia carried it forward. The original XM1 main battle tank and the m2 and m3 IFVs were developed around the same time and came to fruition despite a lot of teething problems. The M109 self-propelled 155 also came out of that era. My guess is that since the 155 rounds are easier to handle, and the weapon itself is smaller than the super-howitzers, it was easier to fit inside an armored superstructure. IIRC, the 109 has an NBC system, unlike earlier open-topped guns. Remember that it was developed when the threat of a nuclear conflict in Europe was still a major concern.

Finally, although I'm sure it would be possible to develop a new generation of super-howitzers, there would be little point to it. Modern self-propelled rocket-artillery systems like the MLRS and the HIMARS offer superior range and a greater potential for surprise saturation fire, able to catch infantry and light vehicles in the open with a single salvo. Their larger warhead capacities also allow them to carry more specialized munitions than their conventional counterparts. Additionally, they are even more versatile than the 155mm round. I never worked with MLRS but I know the HIMARS can elect to carry a payload of two strategic rockets with a range of like 450 miles, and neither needs to deploy spades before firing, making for easy relocation to a reloading site.

In short, the medium artillery rounds are a lot more flexible than the old super-heavies, and rocket artillery sems to be the wave of the future. I don't know what the army is doing right now,, but the Marines Corps is retaining some 155s for the time being, as a complement to the HIMARS system. It has been years since I talked to any of the brass about it, but last I heard, they were going for a 50/50 mix, using rockets for devestating, quick barrages, and M198s for sustained and counterbattery fire.

I hope that helps a little, but I'd get a second opinion. It has been some time since I operated with a unit that gets new equipment.

[bookworm_020]

It would be expensive as well to develop, and like what has been said before, no real purpose as existing weapons can do the job just as well.