Gun barrels?

Thanks for all the good information and patience. I did not do my research before I joined (Something I need to learn). Forgive my naivity in not realizing this was an intellectual forum and not just amature WWII discussions. I checked out some of the heated discussions listed above and they only serve to confuse me with conficting data and no real quotes to check. Nothing but egos!

I am happy that I did not cause a problem with my thread I started and I have realized that this is no place for a freshman history student to play. So on that note, I bid farewell to all, and again thanks for all the information.

Best Regards
John Welsh (J_S)

PS - The first thing we were taught at College was how to research and weight things like: Source documents, eye witness accounts, third person accounts and etc. From a amature point of view I see too much weight being placed on third person accounts in some of the heated threads. We rely too much on the correctness of accounts which are summarys, useally with one point of view, the authors. Just a thought!

 

Thanks. Didn't realize you could do that. Note that most browsers also allow the individual to select larger font sizes.

Back to a question asked. This source Howitzer - Definition
states that a howizter has a barrel of 30 calibers or less and a gun over 30.
This one howitzer: Definition from Answers.com
list it has having a barrel between 15 and 25 calibers. With mortars being defined as having barrels under 15 and sometimes a "gun-howitzer" as having a barrel caliber between guns and howizters. As the references state in recent years it's become a bit more confused as the intended main role has become of more import than the barrel length.

 

John, I personally think there is room for both. You can dig into a subject as deeply or as superficially as you'd like. I personally think many of the less in depth threads are the most enjoyable but if I'm looking for something in depth and thought provoking I can find that also.
Yes, Egos do ruin a few threads, but the majority of the people I've run into here are real gentlemen (and a few ladies). So be sure to hang around, this can be a very good place for a "freshman history student to play".

 

That certainly runs contrary to his original post:

This is the thanks you get for being nice to the new guy:

Glad we could entertain you.

 

Mr Formerjughead,
I appologize for my last post. I feel terrible that you are insulted. Its just I felt that I might of been bothering folks with my newbie questions. You would not of been insulted if you had not cared, so I have reconsidered my decision and will stay logged on. Please forgive me.

J_S

 

Too late, the die has been cast. You must now live with the fate you have created for yourself.
Your integrity and intentions are now suspect.

 

Logging out.

 

If you are going to use one of the definitions, you linked to, the first one would be the best, most of the time. For WWII era weapons it's accurate most of the time, but it becomes greatly inaccurate for modern weapons.

examples:
Modern M-198 155mm howitzer 39.2 cal
Modern M-777 155 howitzer 39 cal

Now these both have greater caliber than the WWII M2(31cal)/M5(38.5cal)/M6(38.5cal) 75mm guns. Then you have the German 75mm KwK 37 L/24 or 24 caliber, which would classify it as a howitzer if barrel length were the only determining factor but it's a gun. If you go further back in history to around the time of the American Civil War it was barrel length and chamber size and lack of rifling. You had the 12lb field howitzer with a smaller chamber and shorter barrel than the 12lb Napoleon gun/howitzer that was a smoothbore with a similar barrel length but larger chamber to the 3" James Rifle which was similar in barrel length and charge size but, as the name implies a rifled piece. I still think the one constant is the capability of a higher angle of fire and more arched trajectory. The multiple propellent charges while normally working well when differentiating howitzers from guns, doesn't work with mortars which share this characteristic.

Are well all confused enough yet?

 

Add that naval guns used multiple charges. The Panzerhaubitze 2000 is officially a howitzer but .... it's 52 calibers !!!!

 

Slipdigit,

I believe so, it is capable of 5 round MRSI as-well.

 

Very good examples TOS, which led me to think of the ubiquitous U.S. Naval 5"/38 mount which was capable of a very high angle of fire for AA use. Which led me to remember that the German Flak 88, definately not a howitzer, was also capable of very high angles of fire. Where does that leave us? Trajectory?

 

As you go on to detail the problem is that the definition changes over time and if you are talking of historical events it becomes problematic whether to use the current or historical definitions. Best bet IMO is not to get to hung up on it and if you think it's important ask what defintion is being used. The current one seems to howizers are breach loading indirect fire weapons and mortars are muzzle loading indirect fire weapons except now there are breach loading mortars .... and guns seems to be generalized to greater or lesser extents...
I think my head hurts.

 

Good post lwd! I agree fully.