Gun barrels?

One things for sure. It will not fool me any more. I know better now

 

"Yes your Honor I plead not guilty on the grounds: Larry told me to"............that will never work.

 

One last question, staying on topic and I will give you guys the rest of the weekend off. LOL

What is the difference between a gun barrel and a howitzer barrel?

J_S

 

Thanks. Have a great weekend.

J_S

 

In WW 1 the British primarily used a 25 pounder artillery piece as their main battle field weapon. It was quite effective and was intended to hit what the gun layer saw, diectly which also made it exposed to counter battery fire. The Germans developed a howitzer approach and used forward observers with signal flags then phone lines to convey range information on ground lines. Their gunners did not fire directly , tending to lob shells over the line from hidden positions. So the long barrel 25 pounder had a flatter trajectory and the German's used a lower velocity short barrel gun to lob.The land lines were venerable. By WW 2 the German approach won out and was aided by radios. The German 88 began life as an anti-aircraft piece, long barrel, high velocity to reach high elevations but could be fired horizontally and was very effective as a static anti-tank weapon, particularly in the defensive role in the desert and in retreats in Russia as it could knock out tanks before they could get into their range. Shermans were fitted with short barrel guns ( or rifles, 75 mm. ) and 105 howitzers at the beginning of the war. Later they added an even more effective 76 mm longer barrel hi-velocity gun and the British added a somewhat even more effective, 17 pounder, sometimes called a 77 mm to their Shermans. The gamut of gun to howitzer in one tank.

All barrel, case and projectile equations are as carefully optimized as possible given their role. The ideal is for the propellant to produce marimum expansion as the projectile leaves the muzzle at the desired velocity. Generally a long barrel gun produces higher velocity and better accuracy but indeed twist rate , projectile weight and length as well as shape and precision of machining all affect behavior including accuracy. Blanket statements rarely cover complex situations but gereralities contain many truths.

Phosphorus explosives are highly effective anti personal rounds. The Germans had fewer of them that the US because of supply and logistics but when they explode they shower an area with small bits of intensively burning phosphorus that sticks to skin and clothing and is very difficult to remove. Tanks, artillery and bombs all delivered it. HE is fast, phorphorus is slower , take your pick!!! Both grusome. Artillery killed more soldiers in WW 2 than any other weapon system.

Modern smoothbore cannon are a product of the post war period but I belive the Germans were developing one late in the war as they had come up with wire guided missles, not needing rifling, I may well be wrong. Most modern MBT's use them , generally 120 mm, West and 125's in the old Warsaw group. Less barrel wear and as the projectile leaves the bore angled fins pop out to give spin and stability to the projectile. I believe the Brits are the only nation still using rifled barrels on the Challenger 2. I read on the Defense Forum that it has a slight accuracy edge at the expense of wear. Great tank. The Abrams uses a barrel developed by Rheinmetal, in Germany but I believe now produced here.

Nice thread,

GB

 

I agree with Opanapointer, the term howitzer is dated now but the role of artillery remains the same. It is increasingly mobile as radar guided semi auto-loading counter battery fire becomes more common in first class armies. Boy development never sleeps!

 

First let me say great thread guys! This is what I came to these forums for. Guy asks a question and the knowledgeable rogues answer it, no "search it yourself". Everyone is civil and builds upon one anothers knowledge. KUDOS! gtblackwell-OpanaPointer-Slipdigit-formerjughead-lwd-T. A. Gardner (hope I didn't miss anyone), give yourselves an atta-boy and pat on the back. Good job.

I have a couple of corrections/elaborations to make but they'll have to wait til later, the boss (wife) calls.

 

I think it's pretty much an unwritten rule that everyone gets a 'freebie'; abuse of this understanding is done so at the inquisitors peril. The question was predicated on the premise that the OP had already researched the subject and was still uncertain of the answer and was therefore turning to us to 'fine tune' his understanding of the subject.

To put it metaphorically:
We stood around the well while he dug the hole. Had he simply come here and asked for a drink of water, I am sure, he would have had a different experience.

Brad

 

Agreed. The reason for my comment is that several of the threads I subscribe to have devolved into something akin to WCW. I've ceased posting to them for fear of getting drug into the cesspool or getting splattered by all the brown smelly stuff being flung around. You've got a new member that asked a legit question and everyone has been civil and gave him good answers. I knew all the information posted (well almost) but enjoyed it anyway. I just wanted to thank you guys for being the kind of guys that made me want to join in the first place.
There is noting wrong with debate, even heated debate, I enjoy it. It makes us evaluate our positions, research the topic and we learn something. However, personal attacks or trying to pound your preconcieved notions into another's head is not what I came here looking for.

I did learn something new from this thread and an interesting piece of trivia:

and the trivia

Now for my comments:

gtblackwell wrote:

Actually, WP (white phosphorus) and smoke during WWII, Korea and Vietnam were and may still be classified by the military in a seperate category, Chemical.

While WP can and has been used in an anti-personel role, it's primary use is for spotting rounds, as an incendiary and smoke.

The howitzer is alive and well in the U.S. inventory, we have the M-198, M-777 and venerable M-109. Classically the howitzer did have a shorter barrel than a gun, but this distinction is no longer always the case. Two attributes do remain, a howitzer is capable of higher angles of fire and uses multiple propellent charges.

 

AFAIK the Germans included the conical part of the firing chamber in the barrel length calculation while almost everybody else didn't.
So the 15cm./45 of Pillau and Strassburg became 149/43 in Italian service an the Flak 36 88/56 were know as 88/53 or 88/55 when used by Italian forces .
This get even more confusing with some A/T guns, the 75/46 Pak 40 (carriage mounted A/T gun) and the 75/43 KwK 40 (the gun on the Pz IVF2) had the same barrel lenght but as the tank gun was redesigned with a shorter and wider firing chamber to better fit in the turret it looks like it's 3cal (22.5 cm) shorter according to the German system. AFAIK 75/48 of the Pz IVH had the barrel lengthened by 5cal (37.5cm) to compensate for the need to reduce the charge in the shortened cartrige to avoid jams.

 

USMCPrice. Thanks for the comments and additional information. I am strickly an amateur historian and enjoy learning here. I was born in 1940 and grew up after WW2 but my generation had a great interest in it that faded a bit as careers and familes came along . Discovering forums such as this has been a revelation. I cannot read print much now but a HD screen is fine and it is a great way to find out new informatiom.

I did not realize the WP was listed as a chemical category but it makes sense as does it's use as a spotting shell. I vaguely recall reading it was dropped on Hamburg to set fires with pretty grusome side effects on human beings. I am aware the howitzers are still in use but it seems the term itself is fading in use. I could well be wrong but I hear "artillery" more often now. I find the current term anti-aircraft artillery rather strange today. I got to see an impressive M-109 demonstration at Ft Knox a life time ago/

Thank you for the updates, always good to learn and I appreciate your mannerly way of doing so.. I was reading the "Most influential tank, etc" post and simply quit as a result of arcane squabbles. You could give lessons to good postings. Is it me or does the subject of armor-tanks bring out the worst in people?

Glad to find this good place.

GB

 

Thanks !!! I am in the same category ! Fuch's, EMP, CSR, and macular hole !! Need to get a Kindle.

Gaines

 

Artillery is a branch or arm in the military, a howitzer is one of the primary weapons used in the branch. I.E. Armor is the branch, a tank is the primary weapons system. The M-109 is a self-propelled 155mm howitzer, the M-109A6 Paladin is the current version, and yes, it is a pretty impressive weapons system.

You're welcome and I love to learn also that's why I'm here. The same thread you mention is one of the threads I was referring to. I'm not sure why it went downhill as badly as it did.

I'm glad you found it also and I look forward to more discussions with you in the future.