Author Topic: Size Of The Guns  (Read 11287 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Crazy_Eyes

  • Guest
Size Of The Guns
« on: November 16, 2004, 21:30:43 »
Ok, so I was thinking about it today, and it occured to me. Why was it decided that 105mm, and 155mm where to be the "standard" if I can use the term size for the shells? I mean why stop there? No point in going smaller obviously thats what mortars are for, but why not have something like a 255mm? or a 305mm? Is it even possible? Or do they exist and I just haven't heard of them? What would the pro's and con's of such a large shell be? Just figured I'd stir up some conversation on the Arty board, it's been kinda quiet latetly.

Offline ToRN

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 6,756
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 795
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2004, 21:44:09 »
I would assume that it would have to do with the transportation and storage needs, a shell that size would take up a considerably larger space, wheigh more, and wouldn't 'go the distance'
Chimo

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 61,162
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,870
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2004, 21:52:20 »
Guns far far bigger then that have existed... particularly during WWI with regards to field artillery.

Basically, you bring the biggest thing you need to do your job. Anything bigger then that is just extra junk to carry around.

pappy

  • Guest
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2004, 21:53:37 »
Rate of fire, range, logistics, etc, lots of reasons.....

But also have you ever humped a 8" HE round? (203mm) 205 Lbs, Try two....   The bigger the bullet the bigger the gun / howitzer, the bigger it is the harder move, hide,   the more men to takes to man it, emore wear and tear, etc...   

105mm 36 lbs, 155mm 95 +/- lbs.....




Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -7995.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 282,817
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,676
    • Army.ca
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2004, 23:20:40 »
Of course, at the extreme :o

Largest gun

the largest was the "Gustav Gun," built in Essen, Germany in 1941 by the firm of Friedrich Krupp, A.G. Upholding a tradition of naming heavy cannon after family members, the Gustav Gun was named after the invalid head of the Krupp family  ­Gustav Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach. The strategic weapon of its day, the Gustav Gun was built at the direct order of Adolph Hitler for the express purpose of crushing Maginot Line forts protecting the French frontier. To accomplish this, Krupp designed a giant railway gun weighing 1344 tons with a bore diameter of 800mm (31.5") and served by a 500-man crew commanded by a major general.

Two types of projectiles were fired using a 300-lb. charge of smokeless powder: a 10,584 lb. High explosive (HE) shell and a 16,540-lb. concrete-piercing projectile. Craters from the HE shells measured 30-ft wide and 30-ft deep while the concrete piercing projectile proved capable of penetrating 264-ft of reinforced concrete before exploding! Maximum range was 29 miles with HE shells and 23 miles with concrete piercing projectiles. Muzzle velocity was approximately 2700 f.p.s. Three guns were ordered in 1939. Alfried Krupp personally hosted Hitler and Albert Speer (Minister of Armaments) at the Rugenwald Proving Ground during the formal acceptance trails of the Gustav Gun in the spring of 1941.

Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Gunnerlove

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -45
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 313
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2004, 00:37:30 »
During WW2 my unit manned a battery of 9.2 inch (233.7mm) guns. I think they were among the largest ever employed by Canada.

A large shell will go just as far if not farther than a small one as the mass increases faster than the surface area, thus inertia increases faster than drag. You just need a gun capable of taking the pressures required to get it moving. Of course these guns were in fixed mountings and intended for use as coastal defence so ease of transport was of less concern than the ability to punch through a ships armour.
"Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty." Unknown

"In a gunfight four rounds in four inches in 4 seconds will always be a better grouping than two rounds through the same hole in twice the time" My father

Offline SHELLDRAKE!!

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 405
  • BIG GUN GO BOOM
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2004, 05:11:56 »
 Also with bigger guns you deal with costs involved in making bigger projectile, lots more propellant etc. If you think along the lines of say a 105mm pumping off 20 rounds a minute onto a grid square you would have more of an effect than an extremely low rate of fire for a bigger bang.Also adjusting a target could become very expensive and time consuming.
"Artillerymen believe the world consists of two types of people; other Artillerymen and targets"-unknown

Crazy_Eyes

  • Guest
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2004, 20:21:24 »
So would there be any advantage to having even a few bigger guns? Or would it just be to much of a burden to worry about, sure there's lots of downsides to it, but could any of you see any practical positives?

Offline ToRN

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 6,756
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 795
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2004, 20:22:44 »
I vote burden
Chimo

Offline Gunnerlove

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -45
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 313
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2004, 21:13:23 »
If you needed a 2000lb bomb placed on a tgt the best bet would be a smart munition dropped by an aircraft. We do not need a bunker busting howitzer because we have other tools in our tool box that were lacking when the monster guns were used during WW1. I think that 155 and 105 provide a good mix in regards to power of the shells and rate of fire.
"Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty." Unknown

"In a gunfight four rounds in four inches in 4 seconds will always be a better grouping than two rounds through the same hole in twice the time" My father

Offline River Fenix

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2004, 10:43:19 »
 Yeah... and When you're a gunner you really appreciate the weight of everything. Sure, it would be really cool to see a 30 inch gun fire, but Im telling you I dont want to be the one trying to load it. You know why a 155mm is loaded in parts, instead of all together like the 105mm? because its a ***** to try and load something much bigger than the 105mm! lol

Offline Bomber

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 422
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #11 on: November 19, 2004, 11:20:48 »
Some major problems include

Shell weight, like pappy said, the heaviest Gun in the west is the almost obsolete M110 which is an 8 inch barrel mounted on a tracked un armoured chassis.  The bullet is about 200 pounds, but the rate of fire is something like a round per minute.  Going bigger than this will just decrease your mobility, with the speed of CB, a giant gun would we completely destroyed by your enemies counter battery fire before it could move from its Gun Position.  The current 105's can be brought out of action very quickly, especially if you are being CB'd, just leave everything behind, hook in and go.  These Giant guns would need to be pulled by Something larger than an HLVW, because figure a 10 inch gun, a shell weight of maybe 400 pounds, carrying probably 40 rounds, oh man you have a giant piece of logistics.  Plus these guns wear out their barrels faster from trying to contain the massive explosions required to send the round down range.  If a bigger explosion is needed, better call a FAC and sweet talk them, or maybe we can get an Honest John and some Bomarks going.  The US solution was to remove almost all M110's from service and replace them with MLRS units.

Offline muskrat89

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 25,947
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,471
    • Desert Rat
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #12 on: November 19, 2004, 11:34:35 »
A couple of points - the bigger the gun, the "farther back" it is, and the less it is dependent on mobility and protection (generally, and obviously there are exceptions). No one is expecting 8" guns to do quick actions, as a rule...  Read up on the differences between "close support" and "general support" - assuming they still differentiate the taskings that way.. I'm sure RCA or Gunner can elaborate...

In addition, guns bigger than 105s are usually either loaded mechanically, or by more than one person. I didn't want anyone envisioning the poor ol #5 staggering up to the breech with a 200 lb projectile, and then trying to load it by hand.....
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

Offline Gunner

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 6,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,835
  • Artillery Forum Moderator
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2004, 11:42:29 »
Guys, I'm surprised the realization of "size doesn't matter - its how you use it".    ::)
Had a wonderful ~26 years in the military and still miss it.

Offline Bomber

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 422
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #14 on: November 19, 2004, 13:31:34 »
Pop these onto the back of and HL and lets work on our arms cause the bullets weigh about 2700 pounds.

  Just kidding, I get that they are loaded mechanically, but without easily destroyed rails, these guns can't exactly move very far or very fast, and even as GS, with most 155's averaging 40km's accurately, guns this size could never really be out of the enemies range.  Now, maybe if we could find Dr. Bulls notes and build something bigger than Project Babylon and mount it in the Rockies, we could fire from Canada and support all over the world.  Not being serious.

Offline Goober

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 404
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #15 on: November 19, 2004, 15:09:54 »
Of course, at the extreme :o

Largest gun

the largest was the "Gustav Gun," built in Essen, Germany in 1941 by the firm of Friedrich Krupp, A.G. Upholding a tradition of naming heavy cannon after family members, the Gustav Gun was named after the invalid head of the Krupp family  ­Gustav Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach. The strategic weapon of its day, the Gustav Gun was built at the direct order of Adolph Hitler for the express purpose of crushing Maginot Line forts protecting the French frontier. To accomplish this, Krupp designed a giant railway gun weighing 1344 tons with a bore diameter of 800mm (31.5") and served by a 500-man crew commanded by a major general.

Two types of projectiles were fired using a 300-lb. charge of smokeless powder: a 10,584 lb. High explosive (HE) shell and a 16,540-lb. concrete-piercing projectile. Craters from the HE shells measured 30-ft wide and 30-ft deep while the concrete piercing projectile proved capable of penetrating 264-ft of reinforced concrete before exploding! Maximum range was 29 miles with HE shells and 23 miles with concrete piercing projectiles. Muzzle velocity was approximately 2700 f.p.s. Three guns were ordered in 1939. Alfried Krupp personally hosted Hitler and Albert Speer (Minister of Armaments) at the Rugenwald Proving Ground during the formal acceptance trails of the Gustav Gun in the spring of 1941.



Many a time I've both defended and destroyed that gun in Wolfenstien: Enemy Territory.. ahh the memories...

Offline beach_bum

  • Fallen Comrade
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 8,435
  • Posts: 1,379
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #16 on: November 19, 2004, 17:15:40 »
Guys, I'm surprised the realization of "size doesn't matter - its how you use it".    ::)

Quite funny.....that's just what I was thinking when I read the subject.  ;)
Eddie would go!

Offline Big Foot

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 761
  • Muda, mura, and muri everywhere I look...
Re: Size Of The Guns
« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2004, 19:39:07 »
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but... wouldn't a smaller bore also last longer? I mean, less heat, less pressure from the firing of the gun should make for a longer lasting gun, too. And besides, why haul something as big as the Gustav gun around when you can have a well equipped battery of 105s with a smaller number of people and a much faster fire rate with greater accuracy? Bigger doesn't always mean better, from what I can tell.
It's not insubordinate if you know exactly where the line is and walk on it but never cross it.