155mm Gun

John McGillivray · #1 25-03-09, 23:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunner

The other photos (with the spare tyres) may be early US before the M1 helmet was adopted (note the webbing and packs) and if so would definitely be 155mm.

The spare tyres indicate that the tractor used different sized tyres than the gun (or was tracked). the limber and tow bar appear to be the early model which ties into my beleif that this is a US gun early in the war.

Ubique! Mike

Gunner · #2 26-03-09, 00:27

John:

Some excellent sleuthing in tracking down the original photos under discussion. Thanks!

The British Gunners used the 7.2 inch (L23 barrels) Mks I to V which was a WW I 8" howitzer sleeved down to 7.2" and fitted with pneumatic tyres. The Mk 6 (sometimes seen as 'VI') was a marked departure as it fitted a new longer (L34.4) barrel to the US M1 carriage.

Thus three pieces used the US M1 carriage (and variations thereafter):

The US 8" howitzer with a barrel length of 17' 6";
The US 155mm gun with a barrel length of 24' 2"; and
The UK 7.2" Mk 6 gun with a barrel length of 20' 8". The slim barrelled 7.2" is often misidentified as the US 155mm even though its barrel is almost exactly halfway between the two US` barrels in length. As you noted, the 8" howitzer has a very 'fat' barrel which makes it appear shorter than it is.

The US 8" fired a 90 kg shell to a max range of 16.5 km;
The UK 7.2" fired a 90 kg shell to a max range of 18 km; and
The US 155mm fired a 42 kg shell to a max range of 23 km thus the UK gun was an "improvement" on the US howitzer and, as it used the same carriage it could, like the 25 pounder, actually be classed as a gun/howitzer. Of course this can lead to some very esoteric discussions about shell weight, weight of fire and the roles of guns versus howitzers!

One of the identifying features of the 7.2" Mk 6 is the distinctive muzzle swell as seen here: http://books.google.ca/books?id=ij7v...esult#PPA54,M1

The M110A2 8" self propelled howitzer recently retired by most NATO countries has a barrel as long as the old 155mm gun and can fire its 90 kg projectile 23 km and with base bleed improved conventional munitions it can reach a staggering 30 km.

Mike

Les Freathy · #3 28-03-09, 22:53

A nice shot of the 155mm GUN in training in the UK with American troops

Les Freathy · #4 28-03-09, 23:03

Three more from various sites the first two from the Polish institution shws 155s in Italy

Andrew Morrison · #5 29-03-09, 00:56

Some years ago I was told a story which related to a gun which looked much like those in these pictures. It was told to me by a friend of an uncle of mine. Both had been in the Australian army during WW2 being officers in the artillery finishing up in New Guinea / Solomon Islands area. Was told by my uncle not to believe eveything his friend said unlike if he himself told me a story which was always true!

First thing was that they modified the gun carriage from the multi wheel arrangement to singles. This was due to poor in cross country ability in muddy conditions as the mud built up between the dual wheels.

Now my uncles friend went to Bouganville where they had some rather unfriendly Japanese people who were also in the area. One day there was an attack where the Japanese used tanks in an attempt to come through a pass in the mountains. This pass was not unlike what a child would draw being a v between the hills. As there were no anti tank guns they used one of these guns to knock out the tank. Sighting was done virtually down the barrell fired gun and tank dissapeared back wards behind hills. Remember they have no anti tank amunition and this is not normally considered an anti tank gun. Due to low cloud there was no air reconniance to confirm what was happening on the other side of the mountain. Were there a number of tanks attempting to come through but could only fit through one at a time or was the same tank repeated knocked back with the concussed crew removed and another crew put in who were told to try their luck.

Anyone with some knowledge of what might or might not have been happening ?

Gunner · #6 31-03-09, 00:30

Hi Andrew:

The problem with the mud packed wheels may well have resulted in reducing the paired sets to one each but it would have put the tyres way over their safe load limits and I suspect that the gun would have sunk even more deeply due to the weight on much less surface area. Nonethless, I have seen odder things done and, as your Dad said, always believe his war stories!

I have used the modern M109A2 in the anti-tank role and there is a reason why there is no anti-tank ammo made for it... we fire straight High Explosive (HE) with a super-quick fuze and the mess it makes of a 52 ton Centurion leads me to believe that there was little left of the much lighter built 15 ton Japanese tanks after being struck by the 155mm round! I have watched five ton turrets flip up in the air when hit by the 155mm. I suspect that the Japanese simply drove over what little there was left of their previous tank(s) in that V shaped valley!

Mike

sapper740 · #7 31-03-09, 02:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunner

Hi Andrew:

I have used the modern M109A2 in the anti-tank role and there is a reason why there is no anti-tank ammo made for it...

Mike

Mike, I've been out of the loop for almost a decade now with what the CF uses by way of SPG's...and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the Canadian M109 the A4 model? And do we still have them on strength? I remember reading about the Copperhead round for the 155 some years back and was amazed at it's capabilities...did Canada ever deploy the Copperhead round or a similar smart round?

Derek.