Question for the artillery experts...

[Slater]

The following is a quote from the November-December issue of the Army's "Fires" publication, written by Capts. Joseph Schmid and Adam Wilson Jr. :

"Today, our cannon tubes would melt and become dangerous if we were to fire as we did in WWI or WWII. Data from WWI shows field guns fired an average of six rounds per minute for about three hours of preparation Fires and five rounds a minute for the creeping barrage; light field howitzers fired an average of four and a half rounds per minute for about three hours of preparation Fires and four and a half rounds a minute for the creeping barrage; heavy field howitzers and 100 mm guns fired an average of two and a half rounds per minute for about three hours of preparation Fires and two and a half rounds a minute for the creeping barrage; heavy guns (150 mm and above) fired an average of one and a half rounds per minute for about three hours of preparation."

Artillery is way outside my lane, but I find it interesting that our current gun tubes (evidently) can't sustain the same rates of fire as was done a century ago, considering the probable advances in metallurgy since then. Is this an accurate observation?

[HeruMew]

My Father was Airborne Artillery.

During a jump, one of the old training cannons plummeted after a support line snapped. It didn't just drop straight down, but he said it landed with enough force to plant the cannon bore into the dirt quite a few feet.

After landing, they went to go salvage what was left and found that it was mostly intact and still good to go after they cleared the massive bore obstruction.

Dunno if it was a Howitzer back in the 85-86 or not that they would be training with, but that's a story of some major abuse on a cannon.

[rjacobs]

I am also not an artillery expert, but what types of ammunition(for lack of a better term) are we firing today vs. 70-100 years ago?

I believe we are firing shit with WAY higher pressures and much crazier projectiles MUCH longer distances vs. what they were doing in ww1 and ww2.

[Averageman]

I'm not an "expert" but I've changed some gun tubes, inspected them hundreds of times and have had some training concerning gun tube technology.
Although the gun tubes may not have the same strength or wearability we've had in the past, the knowledge of how to build that combination of strength and elasticity is still available.
We build tubes with a combination of both strength and elasticity. The wear is measured and the tubes are inspected at regular intervals to track wear and insure safety.
We also no longer use artillery invthe same manner as we did in WWII. Fire control and advanced munitions capabilities have advanced to the point where we no longer cover entire grid squares multiple times to take out a target.
So the tubes may not have the same degree of wearability, they don't have to. Tubes are firing fewer rounds now to have a greater target effect.
Building a gun tube for a cannon requires a combination of strength and elasticity. That balance combined correctly ensures wearability, safety and strength to provide a more accurate system.
So although they may wear at a higher rate they are easier to change, more accurate and less susceptible to failure.

[crusader377]

I served in the Field Artillery (M198, 155mm) over 15 years ago and I would question the validity of the statement (Held FDO, PL, and XO positions). From my experience, the M198 was a very durable piece and I had confidence that it could fire faster than the book values. The key driving factor for high rate of fires is your gun crew, gun crew manning, and the logistics piece of ammunition resupply. For example, an equally trained fully manned M198 crew (9 soldiers) can maintain extended rates of fire much better than a reduced crew of 6-7 soldiers.

In the self-propelled world, the cancelled Crusader Artillery System (155mm) was good for 10+ rounds per minute due to an autoloader.

I don't know too much about the new M777 lightweight 155mm and I do suspect some tradeoffs had to be made to reduce the weight from 16,000lbs with the M198 to 9,000lbs with the M777. Could extended rate of fire be one of them? Possibly but I do not know.

Hope this helps.

[HeruMew]

I'm not an "expert" but I've changed some gun tubes, inspected them hundreds of times and have had some training concerning gun tube technology.
Although the gun tubes may not have the same strength or wearability we've had in the past, the knowledge of how to build that combination of strength and elasticity is still available.
We build tubes with a combination of both strength and elasticity. The wear is measured and the tubes are inspected at regular intervals to track wear and insure safety.
We also no longer use artillery invthe same manner as we did in WWII. Fire control and advanced munitions capabilities have advanced to the point where we no longer cover entire grid squares multiple times to take out a target.
So the tubes may not have the same degree of wearability, they don't have to. Tubes are firing fewer rounds now to have a greater target effect.
Building a gun tube for a cannon requires a combination of strength and elasticity. That balance combined correctly ensures wearability, safety and strength to provide a more accurate system.
So although they may wear at a higher rate they are easier to change, more accurate and less susceptible to failure.

This was not something I had factored in. In WWII, planes were only a part of our bombing force, now, with technology, planes pretty much ARE our bombing force.

If we need something in the same grid hit multiple times, we do it a lot differently now.

Great points and a lot of sound reasoning and validity radiates from your rhetoric. Kudos and thank you for the insight / thought expansion.

[mack7.62]

I know the Marines burned out some tubes in Syria, but I wonder what exactly they are comparing in the article, lots of 75 MM's used in WWI & II that likely would take longer to overheat compared to 105's and 155's. But just as with AR's mass matters with howitzer tubes, take a 155 from 16,000 lbs to 9,000 and you have to lighten up the tube which means it cannot handle as much firing before overheating.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Was just reading that the "advanced gun system" on the Zumwalt class ship (14,500t, 600 ft long and it's a destroyer? OK, sure...) was liquid cooled to enable high rates of sustained fire. Academic now since they won't buy any ammo for it, but interesting.

Whatever the truth may be for artillery, here's some other comparisons that might be true but misleading:
-An F-22 can't keep flying after suffering gunfire damage to nearly the extent that an A-10 or P-47 can.
-The M4 has less than half the potential effective range of a M1 Garand.
-The M60 can't sustain fire like an M1919.
etc.

I'm sure any developed country can build an artillery tube for sustained fire if it makes sense to do so. Weight is going to be the issue. If you look at WW1 artillery you see very thick tubes, often not that long, and overall massive steam-age construction.

Going out of my element here but I'm going to guess that artillery propellants in WW1 and WW2 were nearly 100% nitrocellulose, and modern ones probably a high % of nitroglycerin (aka double-base), allowing for higher performance but generating much more heat.

[GH41]

Was just reading that the "advanced gun system" on the Zumwalt class ship (14,500t, 600 ft long and it's a destroyer? OK, sure...) was liquid cooled to enable high rates of sustained fire. Academic now since they won't buy any ammo for it, but interesting.

Whatever the truth may be for artillery, here's some other comparisons that might be true but misleading:
-An F-22 can't keep flying after suffering gunfire damage to nearly the extent that an A-10 or P-47 can.
-The M4 has less than half the potential effective range of a M1 Garand.
-The M60 can't sustain fire like an M1919.
etc.

I'm sure any developed country can build an artillery tube for sustained fire if it makes sense to do so. Weight is going to be the issue. If you look at WW1 artillery you see very thick tubes, often not that long, and overall massive steam-age construction.

Going out of my element here but I'm going to guess that artillery propellants in WW1 and WW2 were nearly 100% nitrocellulose, and modern ones probably a high % of nitroglycerin (aka double-base), allowing for higher performance but generating much more heat.

Just read up on the "advanced gun system". Shot 50 meter diameter groups at 60 NM. How many MOA is that? The ammunition was very expensive. They are working on a system that is more economical.. The new system ammo only cost $70,000 per round!! I thought shooting my brother's 338LM was expensive at 7 bucks a pop.

[trackmagic]

Just read up on the "advanced gun system". Shot 50 meter diameter groups at 60 NM. How many MOA is that? The ammunition was very expensive. They are working on a system that is more economical.. The new system ammo only cost $70,000 per round!! I thought shooting my brother's 338LM was expensive at 7 bucks a pop.

If, I did my math correct that is 1.6MOA:) All day long

[Averageman]

The greatest enemy is the heat generated by the propellant.
When the round is fired superheated gasses will begin to negatively effect the tube and very slowly begin to damage the area slightly forward of the chamber. Most of the damage will be at the six o'clock position and some but less pronounced at the twelve o'clock position.
The material composition of the steel that the cannon is made of has a lot to do with how fast that damage occurs and how severe it will be.
Trading off longer gun tube life will very likely increase the weight of the tube.
Hardness would created by increased density, more hardness then would equal weight and very likely less flexibility.
Increased tube weight would also require all other parts to have an increased weight like trunions, breech, etc.
So with all due respect to the Captain in the article, he's very likely wanting something that's not likely to happen.

[GH41]

If, I did my math correct that is 1.6MOA:) All day long

So it's twice as good as green tips @ 100 yards. That's some bad shit!!

[Turnkey11]

I am also not an artillery expert, but what types of ammunition(for lack of a better term) are we firing today vs. 70-100 years ago?

I believe we are firing shit with WAY higher pressures and much crazier projectiles MUCH longer distances vs. what they were doing in ww1 and ww2.

Today's munition types and the accuracy of our weapon systems negate the need for the sheer volume necessary 50-100 years ago. Same reason we don't carpet bomb entire cities.

[Averageman]

In my career we've changed propellant composition quite a bit.
That propellant composition was single, double or triple based. Now nearly everything is triple based with some more rare double based stuff being fired, but only rarely now.
The advances in propellants have added range, but have also added increased wear.

[SomeOtherGuy]

The greatest enemy is the heat generated by the propellant.

So curiosity got me and I looked up WW1 artillery on wikipedia. A lot of the 8-12" bore artillery I looked at had very leisurely muzzle velocities, as low as 1100fps for one example, and most of the late-war upgrades only hitting 1700fps. That's not at all fast and implies rather moderate pressures and temperatures.

On the flip side, I stumbled across the WW2 German railway gun K5 "Anzio Annie" which apparently had a 3675fps MV. That's blistering fast for a 11" artillery piece. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krupp_K5


Trading off longer gun tube life will very likely increase the weight of the tube.
Hardness would created by increased density, more hardness then would equal weight and very likely less flexibility.
Increased tube weight would also require all other parts to have an increased weight like trunions, breech, etc.
So with all due respect to the Captain in the article, he's very likely wanting something that's not likely to happen.

No disagreement but if you look up some representative examples of WW1 and early WW2 artillery you will see massive construction and massive weights. Complete opposite of the M198 or other 1980's-onward 155mm designs.

[Averageman]

The weight differences are mainly because we improved metallurgy and we can now have increased strengths with lighter weight cannons.
Technology has also advanced to control recoiling forces.
WWI had Artillery pieces that essentially had little if any control of the cannons recoiling forces. The damned cannons rolled backwards every time they fired. This certainly made accurate firing data a nearly unachievable thing.
Today we control recoiling forces with hydraulic forces or a combination of hydraulic and gases. This allows for a better control of these forces, safety and accuracy.

[soulezoo]

Google some photos of WW1 cannon. They had plenty of examples of field pieces using hydraulics for recoil.

[Averageman]

I believe the First World War was the dawn of recuperators ( that tube that sits on the top of the cannon.) and other ways of attempting to control recoil. I don't believe they had advanced much in that area until a bit later.
Yes, they got a lot better as the war went on, but much of the artillery was just barely better than the best of what we used in the Civil War.

[eightmillimeter]

The article doesn’t take into account at all the amount of artillery barrels that were completely toasted in WWI. Yes they fired a ton of rounds in short order, but after a few barrages the barrels were toast and the guns were rotated out. Guns of today probably would last a little longer, but not by much.

[vicious_cb]

Today's munition types and the accuracy of our weapon systems negate the need for the sheer volume necessary 50-100 years ago. Same reason we don't carpet bomb entire cities.

Pretty much this. The modern battlefield against a near peer opponent is too lethal for an artillery battery to sit there and fire a 3 hour preparation barrage. If the enemy is any good, counter battery radar will triangulate friendly battery positions and counter battery shells will start dropping within minutes.

The real question is NOT why our artillery tubes can't last through sustained fire. But why we're still using towed artillery that can't shoot and scoot fast enough to evade counter battery nor provide protection against shell fragments like a tracked SPG can.

Forget this upgrade the M4, DMR 7.62 battle rifle bullshit. We need more self-propelled guns. Relying on air power is questionable if the enemy has any decent SAM batteries near the front lines or is tied up elsewhere. Artillery is still the king of battle so Im not sure why we arent spending more money developing our indirect fires.

[SomeOtherGuy]

We need more self-propelled guns. Relying on air power is questionable if the enemy has any decent SAM batteries near the front lines or is tied up elsewhere. Artillery is still the king of battle so Im not sure why we arent spending more money developing our indirect fires.

Because SPG's aren't sexy, and AF generals assure Congress that we will have 100% air superiority until the heat death of the universe.

The military procurement system is in complete failure mode at this point. The AGS I mentioned earlier is one symptom; the F-35, the LCS, the cancellation of our SPG system, the USS Ford debacle, stopping F-22 procurement at a miniscule number, etc. It's all about defense-contractor graft and procurement generals making a career move into high-paying private industry.

We're going to be hopelessly behind Russia and China, soon if not already, not because we aren't capable of making better technology but because our procurement system won't let it happen at a tolerable price.

[Slater]

Artillery doesn't seem to be as big a priority in the US military as in other militaries. Hence the 7th iteration of the M109 SPG. Although the Crusader would have been, by all accounts, a pretty formidable weapon.

[Slater]

This is an old "Crusader vs Paladin" video. Impressive performance by the Crusader, but what if something failed/broke on Crusader's highly automated system? Would the crew have been able to fix most problems?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBm-FPcz850

[crusader377]

Artillery doesn't seem to be as big a priority in the US military as in other militaries. Hence the 7th iteration of the M109 SPG. Although the Crusader would have been, by all accounts, a pretty formidable weapon.

The Crusader would have been an awesome weapon. I remember reading that a single Crusader would have had nearly the same capability as an entire battery of M109A6 Paladins (6 guns).
The Paladin although it is an ok SPH was supposed to have been a stopgap to modernize the already outdated in the 1990s M109a3 and M109a5. It was never intended to be the standard SPH for over 20 years.

What kills U.S. military procurement is this fetish to have every weapon system revolutionary (and demanding 5 times more capability than the system it replaced). Historically most of warfare has been one of evolutionary improvements and artillery like small arms is a developed technology that drastic increase of capability may not be achievable.

Back to the Crusader vs Paladin. The Crusader was well on its way to working but the Army insisted to reduce weight by nearly 1/3 and that is what added needless complexity, cost, and program risk. The original Crusader in the 55-60 ton class would have worked but the Army wanted to trim it down to 40tons.

The army also should have really considered an off the shelf solution such as the German PzH 2000 which would have offered 80% of the Crusaders capability at 50% of the cost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerhaubitze_2000

[crusader377]

Pretty much this. The modern battlefield against a near peer opponent is too lethal for an artillery battery to sit there and fire a 3 hour preparation barrage. If the enemy is any good, counter battery radar will triangulate friendly battery positions and counter battery shells will start dropping within minutes.

The real question is NOT why our artillery tubes can't last through sustained fire. But why we're still using towed artillery that can't shoot and scoot fast enough to evade counter battery nor provide protection against shell fragments like a tracked SPG can.

Forget this upgrade the M4, DMR 7.62 battle rifle bullshit. We need more self-propelled guns. Relying on air power is questionable if the enemy has any decent SAM batteries near the front lines or is tied up elsewhere. Artillery is still the king of battle so Im not sure why we arent spending more money developing our indirect fires.

I served in a towed battery in the late 1990s and early 2000s and you are absolutely right that towed howitzers are obsolete against a peer or near-pear opponent. Although towed artillery can displace quickly, it is simply not quick enough if your opponent has counter-battery radar capability and good counterbattery artillery assets.