Why no land 127mm artillery?

[vajt]

I was wondering, why don't land units use 127mm cannons/howitzers like many ships use as their primary cannon? The new Oto Melara 64cal 127mm cannon can fire the latest rounds to a range of 100-120km. Instead of self-propelled 155's why not self-propelled 127's?


-----JT-----

[Redguy]

My only guess would be its because of the weight.

[Exer]

Because the military rather use the 155mm howitzer? They most likely have their reasons

[ABNredleg]

I was wondering, why don't land units use 127mm cannons/howitzers like many ships use as their primary cannon? The new Oto Melara 64cal 127mm cannon can fire the latest rounds to a range of 100-120km. Instead of self-propelled 155's why not self-propelled 127's?


-----JT-----
5" naval guns are high velocity, flat trajectory guns, while most land forces find howitzers, with their lower velocity and higher trajectories to be more valuable. Bore wear is also an important factor, with howitzers having the ability to fire thousands of rounds before having to be retubed. The long range mission is handled by CAS and rockets.

History also has a role to play - various countries traditionally have used certain calibers (German 77mm and 88mm, Russian 122mm). The US was equipped with French guns in WWI, and thus used 75mm, 105mm and 155mm caliber artillery pieces. In 1921, the US convened the Westervelt Board, which decided that the division artillery would be 105mm and 155mm howitzers, while the corps general support gun would be a 155mm gun based on a French design. Given that you have 105mm and 155mm caliber weapons, there is no need for an intermediate caliber such as a 127mm. When it came time for NATO to standardize, guess which calibers they selected? The Russians widely used the 122mm gun/howitzer, but that is because they jumped from 76mm to 122mm and bypassed the 105mm caliber common in Western armies.



The British 60 pounder gun, which was their standard medium gun during WWI, was 127mm, so some nations did use that caliber.

[Tinpanzer87]

155mm is better then 127mm this isn't world war II nobody likes small cal Arty!

[Rakki]

I believe the 120mm gap is filled by heavy mortars in Western militaries.

[andehbrown]

Because the military rather use the 155mm howitzer? They most likely have their reasons

That is possibly the most useless post I have ever seen. Anywhere. He was asking the reason, and so you post to say that you don't know? You might as well have just posted 'Nothing'.

[koolkat]

Russian M46 gun is 130mm and is adopted from a naval gun. It was used as a counter battery weapon because of its range. It is heavy for its calibre. I think it is still used in India.

www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/130M46.html

[Luno]

155mm is better then 127mm this isn't world war II nobody likes small cal Arty!


Well the SSG120 works quite good :)
http://www.mss.mil.se/images/local/amos_td_strf90.jpg

[Sabre]

Because you don't need very accurate weapons that can hit ships at 120 km? You need a weapon that can deliver a large payload over a wide target area at a tactical level/range.

Same reason that an MLRS isn't a mobile cruise missle launcher.

[Exer]

That is possibly the most useless post I have ever seen. Anywhere. He was asking the reason, and so you post to say that you don't know? You might as well have just posted 'Nothing'.

And your post is as useful? Atleast iam admitting i have no idea what the hell the military logistic are thinking and i have no idea why they rather use the 155mm, Either its more effective, more cost efficient, or simply just better? happy? Now get posting with useful info instead of flaming me.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Because the military rather use the 155mm howitzer? They most likely have their reasons

That is possibly the most useless post I have ever seen. Anywhere. He was asking the reason, and so you post to say that you don't know? You might as well have just posted 'Nothing'.


And since when were you the acknowledged expert on posting here noob? Are you such an expert on artillery that you could have contributed better - No, I think not.

Considering that you are clearly no military expert and you have only just pitched up here, can I suggest that you shut up and learn something if you want to have a lasting membership?

:bash:

[CruddyLeper]

5" naval guns are high velocity, flat trajectory guns, while most land forces find howitzers, with their lower velocity and higher trajectories to be more valuable. Bore wear is also an important factor, with howitzers having the ability to fire thousands of rounds before having to be retubed. The long range mission is handled by CAS and rockets.

Just to elaborate a bit on this point - naval guns are best thought of as same catergory as fixed base, static artillery. They've got big value shock absorption, and even so are limited to fairly low angles of arc (because when a naval gun fires at a higher angle, more stress is handed back to the ship). Get it totally wrong and the ship capsizes.

Also, even though 2 weapons may have the same calibre, it doesn't always follow that they can fire the same ammunition.

[koolkat]

May be because of the weight of the gun, weight of the shell and the HE content. May be 155mm, 152mm provides the best balance. I am just guessing.

[DeltaWhisky58]

Whether the 114.5mm (4.5") or 127mm (5") naval guns in use on the majority of vessels today, it has to be accepted that the roles of these weapons is totally different from that of land-based tubed artillery of whatever calibre.

Naval guns are precision weapons capable of hitting more accurately at longer ranges than their land-based counterparts. For example, 4.5" guns are still used against both moving targets and aircraft by The Royal Navy - can any army do that with a 105mm or 155mm gun? The land-based weapons can be used with considerable precision, but they are more barrage or area denial weapons than precision guns.

There is no direct comparison between naval guns and land-based tubed artillery - different guns/different job.

[AK74]

this is america!!!!

Bigger is better!!!!!

i guess the 155's are supersized...

just trying to be humorous, no offence intended...

[vajt]

Thanks guys...it does make sense. I was just thinking that for logistics, and probably cost savings, sticking with one caliber for both land and naval branches would make life easier...although I know Germany is proposing their navalized 155mm so we may still be heading down that road.

-----JT-----

[Tony Williams]

Actually the trend is the other way. The next major USN warship, the DD1000, will mount 155mm guns. There are two reasons for this:

1. The emphasis now is on developing guided munitions. The guidance systems are expensive, so it makes sense to make the shell they are attached to as effective (i.e. big) as possible.

2. 155mm naval guns will enable the huge cost of developing guided munitions to be shared between the navy and the army.

The German Navy is seriously interested in adapting their 155mm army SPG turret for naval use (they recently issued a request for proposals). The RN is considering this as well - BAe has a proposal to regun the 4.5" Mk 8 with spare 155mm barrels.

For more on modern naval guns, see THIS (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MCG.html)

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[vajt]

For more on modern naval guns, see THIS (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MCG.html)

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)


Good info Tony. Looks like 155mm will be the new standard. Here's what I see as future ship weapons:
155mm primary gun
35mm Millenium for CIWS
Vertically launched SAMs and ASMs possibly even torpedoes (better for stealth)

-----JT-----